by Eric Flint | Jun 8, 2015 | Hugo Controversy | 342 comments

I’ve been traveling a lot for the past few weeks, so my ability to respond to comments made here is intermittent. One of the comments that was put up on my web site while I was gone lately was a long one by Brad Torgersen. Because of Brad’s prominence in the debate over the Hugo Awards, I think it’s incumbent on me to respond to him.

Before I can do that, however, something else has to be dealt with first. One of the main points I’ve been trying to make, partly in the hope that I can persuade the Sad Puppies to change their minds, is that while scurrilous attacks have been made on them those attacks have come from people who have no real power or influence in the science fiction and fantasy community.

Unfortunately, there’s a reliable old quip, variously attributed to Voltaire and Maréchal Villars: Lord, protect me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies. With the modification that I don’t consider the Sad Puppies to be “enemies” but simply opponents in the current wrangle over the Hugos, the quip has found a home again.

While I was attending SFWA’s Nebula Awards weekend, the following statement was made on her Facebook page by Irene Gallo in response to a question. (The question was “what are the Sad Puppies”?)

“There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic. A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.”

When it comes to sheer, breath-taking dishonesty and just plain silliness, this statement is far worse than any of the ones cited by James May which I dealt with in previous essay. (Most of which were either perfectly fine or, at worst, one-sided.) But what makes the statement noteworthy is that Irene Gallo is not simply a loudmouth on the internet with a tenuous grasp of political logic and apparently no grasp at all of common decency. She is also the Art Director for Tor/Forge Books, which is by far the largest publisher in F&SF. In short, someone who has a genuinely important and influential position in the field.

Before I address the comment itself, I need to make one thing absolutely clear. Whatever her position at Tor, Irene Gallo has the same right to free speech that any American citizen has (as well as the citizens of many other countries, of course). Still, rights are one thing—good judgment is something else again. And it’s her judgment that’s at issue here.

Let me start with the opening half of her first sentence:

“There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively…”

Words matter—something you’d expect any professional in publishing to understand, even if their specialty is art work. Calling someone “extreme right-wing” when you immediately tie that to “neo-nazi” is disingenuous at best. The transparently obvious purpose is to blend “extreme right-wing” with “neo-nazi” in the minds of the readers. The problem is that terms like “extreme” and “right-wing” are inherently vague and the one term in the sentence that is not vague—“neo-nazi”—is wildly inappropriate.

It’s not even appropriate applied to the Rabid Puppies. The two most prominent figures in that group are Theodore Beale (“Vox Day”) and the author John C. Wright. I have been severely critical of Wright and will continue to be, but I have seen no evidence that he either belongs to, is affiliated with, or even has any significant relations with any member of a neo-Nazi organization. The situation with Beale is perhaps murkier, because some of his statements certainly resonate with those made by neo-Nazis. But I have seen no concrete evidence in his case either that would support the charge of being a “neo-nazi.”

And applying the term to the Sad Puppies is simply slander, pure and simple. I have no objection to calling either Brad Torgersen or Larry Correia “right wing,” because they are—and say as much themselves. If you want to add the term “extreme” because it makes you feel better, so be it. For whatever it’s worth, coming from someone who has seen extreme right-wingers a lot more up-close and personally than I suspect Irene Gallo ever has, I think applying the adjective to either Brad Torgersen or Larry Correia is not accurate. If we can descend into the real world, for a moment, what both men are is political conservatives with a libertarian slant who are also devout Mormons. (I mention their religion simply because, as with most religious people, it does influence their political views at least to some degree.)

But leaving aside the issue of “extreme,” suggesting that either of them is a “neo-nazi” or anything remotely close is just disgusting. And don’t anyone bother protesting that Gallo didn’t actually make that charge directly since she did, after all, distinguish between “extreme right wing” and “neo-nazi.”

Yes, I know she did—with the clear intent of smearing the two together. This is the sort of rhetorical device that Theodore Beale loves to use also, when he insists he doesn’t “advocate” shooting girls in the head for wanting to get an education, he just points out that, empirically and scientifically speaking, it’s “rational” for the Taliban to do so.

I’m not guessing at Gallo’s intent, either, as will become blindingly obvious when we move on to her second sentence. But before I do so it’s necessary to address the last part of her first sentence, which is either as dishonest as the first part or is just silly, I’m not sure which:

“…that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy.”

Huh? The last time I looked, nobody except possibly Theodore Beale (and even with him you’d really have to squint) is calling for the end of social justice in F&SF. In one way or another, at least half of the stories written in our field—including ones by Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia—are stories in which the fight for social justice figures prominently. To be sure, people can disagree over what social justice really is and isn’t and the best way to achieve it. But who in hell is actually calling for social justice to end?

Once again, Gallo is employing sleazy rhetoric. The charge which can accurately be laid at the feet of the Sad Puppies is that they are calling for an end (or at least amelioration) of what they believe to be the dominating influence of what they call “social justice warriors” over who gets nominated for and wins the Hugo Award. But translating that into the statement that they are “calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy” is ridiculous. You could just as easily charge me with “calling for the end of straight white males” because I do in fact believe that straight white males have an undue amount of power and influence in our society.

Okay, enough on that. Now let’s move to the second sentence, which is the heart of her statement:

“They are unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic.”

This statement is not even true applied to the Rabid Puppies, although it certainly comes close, especially on the issues of sexism and homophobia. The problem is with the term “unrepentantly” which gives Theodore Beale more credit than he deserves. It would be more accurate to say “the Rabid Puppies are racist, sexist and homophobic even though they try to worm their way out of being blatant about it, especially when it comes to race.” (Where Beale likes to use William Buckley’s old tactic of insisting the problem isn’t an “inherent” defect in black people but simply the fact they haven’t been civilized long enough to have a culture equal to that of white people.)

But, never mind. This is a technicality. It is a simple fact that Beale and his supporters are vicious bigots and that’s as far as I’ll go in defending them.

The real issue is that, once again—and this time without any phony attempt to distinguish between the two—Irene Gallo has slandered the Sad Puppies by trying to make them identical with the Rabid Puppies.

In what sense can Brad Torgersen or Larry Correia or any person identified with the Sad Puppies be called racist, sexist and homophobic, much less “unrepentantly” so?

Words matter, damn it. If Irene Gallo has any citations that would substantiate her charges, let her make them public. And if she can’t—and I’ll make a prediction here: she can’t—then she needs to publicly retract the accusation and apologize to the people against whom she made it.

Period. There is nothing to discuss here. Put up or shut up.

And before Gallo or anyone else tries to get around this by arguing that what’s involved isn’t any blatant statement but the “inescapable and inherent logic” of the positions advanced by the Sad Puppies, I will remind you that you are dealing with a hard-bitten and very experienced old socialist who has had that same filthy tactic used against him for decades. I have been slandered as a “commie” since I was a teenager. (Even during years when I was actually a conservative in my political views on most subjects outside of civil rights.) And whenever I would challenge someone to back up their charges, they would always fall back on the same rhetorical tricks being used by Irene Gallo:

Guilt by association. Guilt by suggesting some “inner logic”—and never mind that the “inner logic” was directly contradicted by statements I made or actions I took. Blah blah blah. Trust me, I know every trick in this particular book. Call it the “Manual for Red-Baiting”—and the fact that this time around the same crap is being applied to people on the right doesn’t change its inherently squalid nature one damn bit.

Finally, there’s this last sentence:

“A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.”

I’ll leave aside the issue of whether Gallo can substantiate her claim that “Gamergate folks” are even involved in this debate, much less that they were “gathered” by people actively participating. I suspect she’s just shooting from the hip but at this point it’s a trivial issue. The really important business comes at the end:

“…a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.”

Again… huh? In what sense can any of the nominees for Best Novel be characterized as “bad-to-reprehensible”?

To remind everyone, the nominees are:

Ancillary Sword, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)

The Dark Between the Stars, Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)

The Goblin Emperor, Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)

Skin Game, Jim Butcher (Orbit UK/Roc Books)

The Three Body Problem, Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books

I’ve read Skin Game and saw nothing “bad-to-reprehensible” in the book. In fact, I enjoyed it a lot, as I have the entire Dresden Files series. I haven’t yet read Ancillary Sword but I did read Ancillary Justice and I find it hard to believe there’s anything “bad-to-reprehensible” there either. I haven’t read this specific novel by Kevin Anderson but he’s a friend of mine and I’ve not only read quite a few of his novels but he and I just got a contract from Baen Books for a new fantasy series and if there was anything “bad-to-reprehensible” in either our (very long and detailed) proposal or any novel of his I’ve ever read, it passed me by entirely.

I haven’t read Goblin Emperor but it’s the next book I’m about to start reading, in part because it came highly recommended by a couple of friends neither of whom saw fit to mention anything “bad-to-reprehensible” in it. And if the charge is to be leveled against The Three Body Problem is it actually the book itself which is “bad-to-reprehensible” or just the translation?

It’s perfectly obvious that Irene Gallo is just shooting from the hip again. The nominees she’s really aiming at are presumably the stories published by Castalia House, except she’s not bothering to aim at all. She’s just blasting away in the same indiscriminate and irresponsible manner that infuses her entire statement.

I will add, by the way, that I have read one of the Castalia stories: “The Parliament of Beasts and Birds” by John C. Wright, which is one of the nominees for Best Short Story. I didn’t much care for the story, for reasons I’ll explain in a later post. But I saw nothing “bad-to-reprehensible” about it other than Wright’s penchant for fustian prose.

Once again, we see silliness melded with smearing. That is to say, the same sort of red-baiting-turned-backward tactic that Gallo has applied throughout.

Okay, enough. In later posts, I will go back to addressing the real issues involved in this debate. For now, I will end by speaking directly to Irene Gallo, if she’s reading this.

You screwed up. (It doesn’t matter what the reason was. I’m not a mind reader and neither is anyone else.) Retract the statement publicly and issue a simple and straightforward apology.

That’s it. If you do that, it’s over. If anyone tries to keep this issue going after that—yes, I know someone will, there are always assholes baying for someone else’s blood—then I will defend you just as vigorously as I’m now criticizing you.

Words matter. That includes retractions and apologies.

If anyone doesn’t understand why that’s true, I will do my best to explain it to you even though it ought to be obvious.

First of all, if you refuse to accept someone’s retraction and apology when they screw up, then you remove any incentive for anyone to ever do so. When faced with the alternatives of being damned if they do and damned if they don’t, almost everyone will keep doing it.

Secondly, you will introduce a strain of venom and rancor into the argument that you will regret sooner or later because it will almost certainly come back to bite you. As a rule, the only people who win debates fought with knives are undertakers.

I’m taking the time to deal with this for two reasons. The first and simplest is that people I know have been unfairly and unjustly accused and I will therefore defend them.

My other reason is more pragmatic. The debate/argument/brawl—call it whatever you will—that we are now having over the Hugo Awards is one that I would like to end. I’ve been mostly arguing against the Sad Puppies not out of animosity—several of them are friends of mine and none of them are people I dislike—but because I am trying to persuade them that their analysis of the situation is faulty and the course of action they’ve adopted is futile at best.

I will continue that debate. But I can’t possibly succeed in my goal, or even make any significant progress, if the people I’m arguing with are not only convinced that they’re being slandered but actually are being slandered. Under those circumstances, people stop listening to anyone except those already supporting them.

So do I. So do you. So does everyone.

So it needs to stop. On all sides.

342 Comments

← Older Comments

1. Joshua David on June 9, 2015 at 3:52 PMThank god someone is speaking out in defense of angry white men!
   • James May on June 9, 2015 at 4:17 PMEver see that blindfold thingy on that statue thingy that stands in front of justice building thingy’s?
     • Mike on June 10, 2015 at 3:48 AMWhat about it?
       • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 4:55 AM*smacks own forehead* He’s saying that “Justice is blind” mate. He’s endeavoring to point out how (even of accurate which it most spectacularly is not) Joshua David’s comment is absolutely, utterly, inarguably childish, ignorant, and staggeringly stupid. Asinine about covers it. But, as I said, not only is Johua’s comment mind-numbingly moronic, it is also grossly, laughably, insultingly inaccurate. As Mr. Doherty pointed out in his open letter to Tor’s customers, the “puppy” slates and groups are comprised of more than straight white men, or even men, or whites. Hell, if we (ridiculously) ignore all the multicolored (because it’s a fun word) women involved on the “puppies” side, and only give a damn about the men, or even just Larry and Brad, Larry, despite media bullshit to the contrary, is NOT white. He is Hispanic, grew up a poor “brown” kid (genetically brown. His melanin count is similar to what a Conquistador would have had…ie, comparatively pale, but arguably swarthy…also gigantic.) in an are filled with poor brown kids.
         (Read his “about me” page, Joshua, and come back when you’ve extracted your brain from your gastrointestinal tract.)
         Okay? Lady Justice is blind. Therefore bitching about nonexistent “angry white men” is meaningless, unless (Joshua) wants Justice to have a deliberate bias. To “peek” through her blindfold, as it were, in order to avoid the appearance of treating all people equally. Whites are worthless, in other words, is Joshua’s point, when it’s boiled down. Capisce? 😛
         Be well. 😉
         • meh.. blind…suuuure on June 11, 2015 at 1:08 PMAnd because justice is blind are so much more black and latinos in your jails, white ppl get less severe punishment or get of dcott free, even when they straight out kill people.Also i am no judge more than for my own opinion and sb who s a white supremacist sexist homophobe and talks stuff very similar to a lot of my newer ancestors had to the harm of millions of innocent people, that person is jes in my opinion, a neo nazi even if he shies away from the worst of language bc that would make it obvious.
           I’d love to see fairness in the sense of a colourblind judge in the american court system..
           Dont think it will happen, though.
           • Bibliotheca Servare on June 13, 2015 at 4:58 AMI wrote a long comment deconstructing your point, such as it is and what there is of it. I deleted it. Because the simple response to you is this: Lady Justice is blind. Just because Her servants are sometimes regrettably less blind doesn’t change the fact of Her blindness. She is an Ideal. A Principle. Something to aspire to. Justice is blind for as long as those who claim to be seeking ansd serving Justice -and who aspire to support the Law- endeavor to mete out justice upon those who violate the Law without regard for skin color, sex, creed, faith, wealth -or lack thereof-, or any other characteristic that differentiates any one alleged lawbreaker from any other alleged lawbreaker. Is this a Pipedream? Obviously. But as long as the *servants* of the law are tireless in the pursuit of that Pipedream, all hope will not be lost. And what “Joshua David” and his fellow jackasses are suggesting is that we, as a society, abandon that principle. That we say “fuck it” and make it so that in the Justice System, rather than having “racial” bias or a bias against a certain sex be a *flaw* in the system, we make it a *feature* of the system. “Whites are privileged, and underrepresented in the prison system!!!1!1 We have to remedy this evil! Whites should automatically earn more severe and longer prison sentences, for lesser crimes, than “nonwhites” do!” “Men are privileged and…overrepresented… in our prison systems! We need to send more men to prison! Or #killallmen at the very least, if we can’t imprison them!1!!” I know this isn’t going to get through to you. But what the hell, I had the time. Oh, and *please* assume you know my sex and race! It’s so much *fun* when ignorant, arrogant “progressive” jackasses assume that because I disagree with them about the nature of reality I must be ____sex and ___gender! Have a lovely, lovely day.
             😉
   • David Medinnus on June 10, 2015 at 1:04 AMEven angry white men can be attacked. Even angry white men can be unjustly slandered. Why shouldn’t someone defend them under those circumstances?
2. G.C. on June 9, 2015 at 3:55 PM(Yawn) Tempest… in a thimble.Let’s get back to arguing vehemently about UFO sightings, like our “classic” sci-fi fore-fandoms did!:D
   • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 5:08 PMWe do that now, only we call the UFOs “white privilege” and hold LARPs called “award ceremonies” to shoot them down. -;)
     • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 4:57 AMRoflmao! Oh…I think I hurt something, laughing so hard… That’s not nice… Watch where you point that wit, you reckless rascal! ;-P
       😉
3. Tigerlily on June 9, 2015 at 4:21 PMShe did apologise but in a “I apologise that people took offence” way. It wasn’t much of an apology. And Tor has taken the stance that “it was her personal page” even though she was promoting a book for them.
   • Brad Handley on June 12, 2015 at 2:22 AMTigerlilly,
     Yes she apologized to those she hurt. But
     1) She did not issue a retraction. She actually doubled down and said while she impugned some people her accusations were accurate. “I used to broad of a brush”.
     2) She did not apologize to the people she offended. So Tigerlilly is it ok for me to hurt you and offend everyone who witnesses it and only apologize to you? Or should I have to apologize to everyone I offended since my vicious actions crapped on their wonderful day as well?
4. G.K. Masterson on June 9, 2015 at 5:07 PMMr. Flint,I hope you don’t mind if I add you to my blogroll.You and I disagree on a lot of things but I’m going to check out your books and give you kudos for being someone who can disagree with Sad Puppies in an adult fashion. I wish that more people were like you.Thanks!— G.K.PS — I had originally planned to email this to you or use a contact form but you don’t have one. 🙁
   • Dave Leigh on June 10, 2015 at 6:02 PMIndeed. I also don’t share your politics, Mr. Flint; but I will sample your work and read more of your blog. Integrity counts.Something too often forgotten in this modern era is that it is perfectly acceptable for two people to disagree. They may air their views and when all is said they may each conclude that they were each unswayed by the other’s argument. In the end it is not what we believe, but how we treat one another that is important. That is respect.
5. Connie C on June 9, 2015 at 5:14 PMAll right maybe it is conformation bias on my part, but having read the original comment several times, Mr. Flint, I honestly can’t come up with the same reading you do that the neo-Nazi part was supposed to apply to all the pups. I keep coming up against respectively, which to me. Means group one is A, and group two is B.
   Do you have any idea exactly what we are looking at differently? I’ve read your post through three times and I’m still drawing a blank on how our reading diverged.
   Thanks.
   • mrsizer on June 10, 2015 at 4:46 PMThere are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively.Explain the word “to”. If she had written “There are two extreme right-wing and neo-nazi groups, called …” You might have a point. “To” implies “ranging from extreme right-wing to neo-nazi”. It is one big adjective, not two independent descriptions.If you think the word “respectively” is so important, I can disagree and say the word “to” is more important. It’s badly written; I think we can agree on that.
     • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 7:37 PMIndeed. *Teal’C eyebrow lift* it’s as if grammar only matters when it agrees with their skewed, ludicrously parsed defense of an indefensible (to people with brains rather than “direct-injection Party-line-to-spout ports” inside their cranial casings) and childishly untrue, not to mention defamatory, statement by on of Tor’s four upper level Directors, isn’t it? Hypocritical, sanctimonious, self-righteous donkey-hats? Where?! Oh. There. *nodnod* How…entirely unsurprising. My kingdom for a mute button! ;-P
       Nicely, and succinctly, put, mrsizer. Kudos.
       😉
       • Carbonel on June 12, 2015 at 1:05 AMMs Gallo’s Facebook post is the gift that keeps on giving.The comments defending her parse her sentences to a fair-thee-well, demanding the readers put the very best construction on it, thus giving anyone who cares to (and screenshots are forever) passionate defense after passionate defense of very carefully reading (for example) Theodore Beale in order to tweeze every jot-and-tittle of nuance that “proves” he is as pure as Ms. Gallo was in saying something insulting about someone.Meanwhile, at Tor.com we have literally 100s of posts defending the unbridgeable right of people (of which Ms Gallo is the exemplar) not to be censured, or have their employment threatened because they used social media to say something indefensible.It’s vastly amusing.
6. Spherical Time on June 9, 2015 at 5:17 PMI apologize, but I must disagree. Even if Gallo committed the sin of hyperbole, I don’t think she did more than express her opinion.All of the further comments about how words matter is undercut by the fact that you don’t seem to know what the puppy novel nominations were, and try to smear Gallo’s comments over Addison, Leckie’s, and Liu when they weren’t puppy-affected.Still, cheers, and I hope the trolls out there aren’t too unkind.
   • Seymour on June 10, 2015 at 11:13 AMShe expressed an opinion and lied in that opinion.
     We now know that if your politics are to the centre or right and you don’t believe all the righteous gunk that the likes of Gallo spew then Tor is not the place for you.I am glad that the senior editors and staff at Tor have been so open, we now know what they hold to be true.
     If they hadn’t been so forthright they could continue claiming that they only ignore writing that is bad, when deciding what to publish.
   • Brad Handley on June 12, 2015 at 2:28 AMSimply put, since she is an Employee of Tor and she was speaking about some of her coworkers, this could be taken to court as Criminal LIBEL. Slander is the defamation by the spoken word. Libel is defamation by the written word. When Entertainment Weekly made similar libelous statements their lawyers told them to immediately issue a retraction. Unfortunately Irene does not seem to know what she should do.
     • snowcrash on June 12, 2015 at 12:17 PMWhat is “criminal LIBEL”? Good gods, someone better call the police!I would suggest that you return your internet law degree.
     • Amy Sterling Casil on June 15, 2015 at 1:07 PMNo, EW did not issue a retraction due to lawyer requests. They corrected the article because they received factual information showing that it was wrong. The article was written based on limited, incorrect information. That was all.The standards for libel and slander are very high and there also has to be money involved for there to be any type of successful civil proceedings. Libel per-se is accusing someone in writing of a crime they did not do. This on the face of it doesn’t rise to that.It’s just poor judgment.
       • Cliff on June 17, 2015 at 2:41 PMPlease don’t make conclusive statements about things you do not understand, thanks.
7. Dex on June 9, 2015 at 5:17 PMSo far, I’ve read “Ancillary Sword”, backtracked and read “Ancillary Justice” for perspective, and “Three Body Problem”. I’ve started “Skin Game”.“Justice” was actually pretty good. I’d probably have given my vote to “Warbound”, because I liked it better, but I can live with “Justice” getting the Hugo. “Sword”, however, is a major comedown. If Leckie publishes “Ancillary Mercy”, and it wraps everything up in a big package of awesome, I’ll just assume a case of Two Towers Syndrome — middle volume of a trilogy frustration. Meanwhile, Nyeh Hugo for “Sword”.“TBP” has me eagerly anticipating the translation of the sequel.I’ve never read any Butcher / Dresden stuff. By the end of this book, I’m guessing the first 14 will be on my post-Hugo reading list.
   • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 5:02 AMYou…you…monster! Starting the “Dresden Files” at “Skin Game”?? Oh…Burn The Heretic!! ;-P lol…I love those books, if you couldn’t tell… Good luck putting them down! *wicked cackle* ;-P ;-D
   • Carbonel on June 12, 2015 at 1:12 AMIs “Sword” really so much worse? If so I might take a look at “Justice” because after reading it most of the GoodReads and other popular reviews all claimed it was better.And frankly, “Sword” read like someone had persuaded the poor woman that sentence structure, punctuation and plotting were Tools of the Patriarchy. “Sword” thus took a fairly standard (but good fun) political/galactic empire space opera with a “unusual human beings are the aliens” trope and rendered it painfully slow and awkward to read. And in at least three places her own mis-handling of her pronoun gimmick threw me out of the story to try to puzzle out a “no prize” for why words that shouldn’t exist in her alien human culture, did anyway.Pull any chapter at randome from Merchanteer’s Luck, Cetaganda or one of Rusch’s “Retrieval Artist” books and compare it to a random chapter from “Sword” and you’ll see what I mean. The difference is painful.
   • Bob Gottlieb on June 16, 2015 at 2:21 PMOoo, Skin Game is up for a Hugo. Now that’s something I’ve read. Maybe the only thing in the last decade.I strongly recommend the Harry Dresden series of books. It’s right after the Honorverse in my priority list. And I must recommend in particular “Dead Beat”. I would tell you why the near-ending is hilarious, but that would give it away. Some clues include: Zombies, Polka.
8. david mann on June 9, 2015 at 7:40 PMPerhaps that apology could have used a once over by a good editor. I’ve heard they are helpful.
9. J. R. Tomlin on June 9, 2015 at 7:46 PMI’m sorry Mr. Flint but your assertion that one has to join a neo-Nazi organization for one’s politics to be neo-Nazi is outright dishonest. If I happen not to be a member of a far left organization, does that keep me from being a socialist? I assure you that it does not.When someone makes statements, as Beale has, that support neo-Nazi positions, it is NOT slanderous to call him out on them as a neo-Nazi. And it was the Sad Puppy’s choice to ally themselves with these racist, sexist, homophobic neo-Nazis. “Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas’ is an adage because it is true. And your rather vicious attack on Ms. Gallo is unconscionable. Disagreeing with her is one thing. Accusing her of commiting an illegal act–slander–is something else entirely. You are guilty of much worse than any possible hyperbole in her commetn.
   • ZeeWulf on June 10, 2015 at 1:04 AMSad Puppies allied with Rabid Puppies? Or do you happen to mean Vox/Beale basically jumping into the pool alongside this year? (Recommending a work last year doesn’t count as being an ally, in most circles.) Because none of the SP crowd ever went over to the RP guys and said “hey, we’s best buds, let’s hang out and do this together!” This is the sort of slanderous drek that Eric is talking about.
     • Barry Deutsch on June 10, 2015 at 4:15 AMZeeWulf:Naomi Kritzer makes a pretty solid case that Vox Day was involved in choosing the SP3 slate.In a nutshell: Larry Correia (and others) have consistently referred to themselves as the “Evil League of Evil” (a reference to Joss Whedon’s “Dr. Horrible”), which is, I admit, pretty funny. But it’s become a nickname that became their routine term for referring to a group consisting of Vox Day, Larry Correia, John C. Wright, and Sarah Hoyt.When Larry Correia announced the SP3 slate on his blog, he said things like “here is what the Evil League of Evil authors came up with in discussion,” “Everybody up there is someone who the ELoE talked about.” and “The ELoE talked about [the problem of controversy] a lot before putting together a slate.”If we take Correia at his word from back before the SPs started trying to distance themselves from VD, it certainly sounds like VD was involved in choosing the SP slate.
       • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 6:58 PMNaomi would be one of the “absolutely not insultingly, indefensibly rude and childish, conspiracy-minded” (to paraphrase myself) “unerringly…pleasant *derisive snort* and civil persons, whose literal-minded approach to reading renders them incapable of grasping sardonic, deliberately mocking, troll-baiting demonstrations of wit” (*massive* paraphrase…but basically an accurate restatement of what I originally wrote) when such demonstrations all but run by them naked as a baby. Demonstrations (of wit. keep up please) such as Mr Wright’s invention, and Mr Correia’s, Mrs Hoyt’s, et al’s (the Latin scholar in me just winced) use of the “ELoE” as though it actually existed. Hell, she even says she “knows some may think it’s just a joke” (paraphrase, because I can’t be buggered to reread her jointly aggravating, childish, nutty, and hilarious screed/theory and effort to induce a “Stalinist-Russia-style” -as Larry put it, speaking of folks like her, and you, in general- denunciation [and tarring -via”guilt by association”- of those who decline to denounce] of Theodore Beale as a monster and “unrepentant racist, misogynist, homophobe, child-murder(er) supporting, cute-kitten-drowning, genociode-minded, naughty, naughty, ‘terrible excuse for a Neo-Nazi’-ing, jerk” [in essence] from authors, commenters, and bloggers [and more] friendly to “TCtPP-RS”) (check my earlier comments, if you can’t puzzle out the acronym…I’m not writing it long-form)
         But she emphasizes that “the evidence” (the nonexistent evidence, that her fevered mind built out of whole cloth, and an inability to accept that the world is not literally out to get her, and some things really are just jokes intended to simultaneously 1: make Larry, Sarah, and Brad’s etc fans laugh, and 2: bait people like her, and you) suggests it’s “totes real” (to deliberately paraphrase her in a silly way) and seriously spooky badness. ees funny, you see? ees veddy veddy funny. The ELoE is an in-joke. Nothing less. Grow a sense of humor.
         Ciao! 😉
         • Carbonel on June 13, 2015 at 1:54 PMI’ll bet she really thinks John Wright is a disembodied brain in a jar.
   • Carbonel on June 13, 2015 at 2:11 PMWhen someone makes statements, as Beale has, that support neo-Nazi positions, it is NOT slanderous to call him out on them as a neo-NaziWhich statements? I can’t recall whether or not he’s come out against smoking, but it’s possible. On the bright side, even if he loathes it and considers it a vice, he’s a libertarian so won’t support government persecution of smokers, so you’re safe.Oh, wait, you don’t mean that it’s possible that something he said is the same as something a member of a Neo-Nazi gang or cult said. You mean he shares the same philosophies goals and opinions in toto that neo-nazis share.He doesn’t. It’s a lie. He’s a frickin’ libertarian and he believes Asians are genetically superior to white people. Yes, crazy opinions but not ne0-nazi. Not genocidal. Not “want to kill all the brown people and make them slaves” and spreading that kind of slander about someone? Evil.What’s sad and scary about the whole Irene Gallo things is that it doesn’t matter if she’s lying about believing that Brad Torgerson, Larry Correia, John Wright, Sarah Hoyt, Theodore Beale and Kate Paulk are either neo-Nazis or neo-Nazi sympathizers or sincere.What matters is that people feel comfortable telling atrocious lies about people because some (not all SOME) of their politics or religious beliefs don’t agree with yours.Now that’s evil.
     • Astraea on June 18, 2015 at 6:02 AMBeale has called for ethnic cleansing, and said acid attacks were appropriate to defend the status quo of male control. I’m not sure why people keep defending him. Is it because they haven’t actually read the garbage he spews?http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/05/11/wnds-vox-day-on-reclaiming-traditional-white-an/164574
10. J. R. Tomlin on June 9, 2015 at 7:47 PMMs Gallo has a right to consider the works terrible, even if you don’t. It is known as opinion. You cannot disprove it with a list saying she has to be wrong because you say so.
    • Sigivald on June 11, 2015 at 7:00 PMSure, but her list can equally be mocked – and that’s also a right, and “opinion”.Some opinions, of course, are better than others, being defensible and having reasoning presented behind them.
    • Carbonel on June 13, 2015 at 2:00 PMAnd it helps a WHOLE lot, if your boss doesn’t publish them and you don’t publically announce your opinion about your company’s product to the whole wide world.Because while you can make a case for “bad” being squishy opinion about literary quality, “reprehensible” implies MacMillan is publishing Mein Kampf for the 21st Century: How to commit genocide using simple tools you have at home.But hey, keep on parsing those sentences. The internet is forever. So the next time Vox Day or John Wright or Brad Torgeson or Patrick Stewart or anybody who posts something from the “not-SJW” or “might be conservative” side of the spectrum, says something that torques you off we’ll be there with screen shots to remind you of your commitment to tolerance, putting the best construction on people’s words and freedom of speech.Thanks ever so!
11. J. R. Tomlin on June 9, 2015 at 7:55 PMSince I expect my (very honest) original post to be moderated, I will just say this, Mr. Flint. I suggest to talk to your attorney before you accuse someone of committing slander because you may very well be guilty of that, much more likely than that Ms. Gallo is. And the idea that you must join an ‘official’ neo-Nazi organization to be a ‘neo-Nazi’ is blatantly absurd. It depends on your beliefs, not whether or not you join organizations.
    • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 8:26 PMIt seems you did not read much of Mr. Flint’s post, where he does in fact address beliefs in asserting that “neo-Nazi” was an inappropriate term for Ms. Gallo to use.Then again, I am responding to someone whose first post was a complete and utter defense of Ms. Gallo on the basis that her assertions of racism, sexism, homophobia and political extremism applying to whole groups amounts only to “opinion” and not slander. Followed immediately by the same person asserting that Mr. Flint’s far more tame, reserved, sourced and intelligent post is something he should be seeking legal counsel to defend.THAT, my good Tomlin, is “blatantly absurd”.You, and people like you here and elsewhere on the Internet who are now rallying to Ms. Gallo’s defense, claiming her allegations were justifiable in any substantial sense, are precisely the sort of people who lend credence to the notion of an “extremist left-wing cabal” wrecking the Hugos.
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 5:07 AM^This. I’d reply to this ass, but I lack the energy to impart sufficiently withering condescension, sarcasm, and criticism. Thankfully, you’ve done a bang-up job yourself! I can relax, lol. Perfect response, Mr. Calbeck.
        😉
    • Pete M on June 9, 2015 at 9:51 PMJ.R., that’s just silly. Neither her claim nor Mr. Flint’s rejoinder would be actionable. She engaged in rhetorical excess; he is allowed to say that this excess was defamatory, even though she’d probably win a defamation claim.And yes, she has every legal right to express her opinion. But he’s allowed to say her opinions are dumb or overstated, which they are.
    • Jim Butcher on June 9, 2015 at 9:56 PMIn print it’s libel.
      • Pete M on June 10, 2015 at 9:03 AMJim, that’s correct. Libel is written; slander is spoken. “Defamation” is an umbrella term that includes both written libels and spoken slanders.
      • Sigivald on June 11, 2015 at 7:02 PM*slow clap*
        • Sukey on April 27, 2017 at 10:53 AMA really good answer, full of raytlnaoiti!
12. Jim Butcher on June 9, 2015 at 9:53 PMI don’t know if Ms. Gallo’s apology was sincere or insincere.I don’t know that, because I can’t read her freaking mind.And neither, presumably, can anyone else.I work with words professionally. I know exactly how powerful they can be. I am also well aware of their limits–and when it comes to expression complex thoughts in emotionally tense situations over the goddamned internet, the magic of written language has little power.How can it? It’s missing too much. You can’t read tone of voice, or the expression on a person’s face when they’re making keys click. Pretty much all you get is “clickity click click.”I’m also an English major. So I’m very aware of how skilled human beings can be at reading all kinds of absolute horse manure into other people’s writing, and then declaring it “subtext” or “internally consistent logic.”But it isn’t. It’s you, guessing. And your guess is probably prejudiced to one degree or another, most often by projecting things into it that were never meant to be there. Or, put another way:http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/what-the-author-meant.jpgMaybe Ms. Gallo wrote the apology with a smirk and a cigarette hanging off of one lip while reciting nasty twitter quotes at every individual member of Science Fiction Fandom. Or maybe she was crying and upset and genuinely trying to make amends. Or maybe she was just numb and exhausted. I don’t know.Neither do you. That’s kind of my point.But maybe it’s simplest if the curtains were fucking blue, we take her words at face value, and extend a bit of human courtesy and trust to a fellow science fiction nerd. Because she is one, whether that pleases you or not.Deep breaths here, guys. Her comment was out of line and made a lot of people upset. She apologized to those people.The curtains were fucking blue.Can we just get on with life, please?
    • Echo on June 10, 2015 at 3:48 AMThat would be nice, but “I’m sorry you’re upset I called you a nazi, nazi” doesn’t really offer much of an opportunity for reconciliation.
      Dropping it and getting on with life just means “bury it in the woods out back and let it its spectre haunt every family gathering until someone finally snaps”.This has been a long time in coming. People are finally saying the things they’ve been thinking for years, and they can’t go back to biting their tongues.
    • Calbeck on June 10, 2015 at 6:41 AMOkay, Mr. Butcher, let’s take the words at strictly face value.She says she believes her words only hurt “some individuals”, despite having flatly aimed them at whole groups. She is only apologizing to those she believe may have been hurt by her words.So on that basis, I’d like to see her drop the “some individuals” nonsense, which only minimizes the scope of her apology needlessly.
    • Elizabeth Leinback on June 10, 2015 at 5:10 PMHi Jim (and hi, Eric! *waves*),As a semipro hothead myself, with a temperament and upbringing that makes me want to See Justice Done (my version of justice, of course) so strongly that I forget mercy, sometimes — thanks for showing up and encouraging people to take a breath. The level of vitriol surrounding this year’s Hugos seems to have started turning fandom/genre preferences into mini-wars, and dividing a diverse community I’ve always enjoyed being a part of.I appreciate what you both have to say about rendering and accepting apologies — I’ve seen Torgersen called out for needing to issue one on a different occasion, and he did — and Gallo issued hers in this case. Apologies don’t get everyone in the SF/F community on the same page, but they definitely can help turn the rage down and lead back to civil discourse.Bravi.
    • Eric Flint on June 10, 2015 at 9:47 PMI agree with Jim. If I wanted to, I could certainly parse Gallo’s apology to see if I could ferret out insincerity or half-heartedness, or whatever the hell. But you know what? I could also — even more easily — parse the comments being made by people still baying for her blood and show that they are at best insincere and usually fraudulent.Why “fraudulent?” Consider this old post by Larry Correia:“Not to mention that one of my stated goals was to demonstrate that SJWs would have a massive freak out if somebody with the wrong politics got on. So on the slate it went. I nominated Vox Day because Satan didn’t have any eligible works that period.”In other words, he deliberately chose Vox Day’s story not because he really thought it was that good — so he lied about that, in other words — but because he was hoping to get the sort of explosion that Irene Gallo provided so it could be used to “prove” the wickedness of his opponents.In other words, you Sad Puppies got exactly what you hoped for and now you’re claiming that you’re deeply upset and offended and you will not by God settle for anything less than Irene Gallo’s entrails being hung from a lamp post.Bullshit. You are a pack of unscrupulous schemers. I defended you against her charges because I felt obliged to do so. But, trust me, I held my nose all the way through. That was the most unpleasant thing I’ve done in a long time.
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 11, 2015 at 6:50 AMI see. I’m an “unscrupulous schemer” now. I thought I just like good books, no matter the race, gender, or other buzzword category the author fell in to. I thought all I was guilty of was declining to consider books that shout at me that I’m a bad person for my faith, or my race, or my beliefs on a whole range of subjects, to be “good books” in my own opinion. I thought that I wasn’t involved in “SP2” the only iteration of “Sad Puppies” in which Theodore Beale was even vaguely involved, and that that year, he was the *only* “puppy” candidate to get a nomination, and I thought that Larry never suggested that his goal in pushing for Mr. Beale’s nomination was anything other than to prove a point. I thought that the only time Larry said he (Brad, really) voted for the folks on Brads (so called) “slate” based only on their worth as creators was in “SP3” in which case, I feel I must ask if you did your due diligence before declaring Larry a “liar” or did you unintentionally conflate “SP2” with “SP3” when making that moral judgment? I thought I was just a fan with a desire for authors I adored to have a chance at “the most prestigious award” I’m sci fi, because I felt they were worthy of that honor. I thought I was taken aback at the volume of outrage, from mainstream media (EW and elsewhere) and from deceitful jerks, including some major figures in the Worldcon hierarchy (such as it is, and what there is of it), dedicated to spreading the message that my, and my friends both offline and on, vote(s) were simply an example of “cheating” and “stealing” or “destroying” (the destroy bit is in your own comment section, on the post where you replied to Brad. Lest you accuse me of meaningless, or “unscrupulous” manufacturing of quotations) the nominating process, and thereby “hijacking” the Hugos. The message that, as such, me, my friends, and multiple authors whose work I love, were nothing more than a bunch of cheating, “unscrupulous,” “abusive,” “jerks who tip over the table at the potluck”. (That last one was none other than that paragon of fairness, Kevin Standlee, the chair of this year’s business meeting) I thought I was pissed, because not only was this message unjust and unfair, bit it was evidence of a sea of hypocrisy and self-righteously arrogant assholery (not a word, but I like it) surrounding and subsuming, not only “the most prestigious award in SciFi” and the most well-known award, but subsuming and engulfing “fan/fendom” (search me. I’ve no clue what a “fen” is, aside from it being some sort of variant of the ubiquitous “trufan” that Kevin Standlee, George RR Martin and others have talked about) and an impressive chunk of the scifi fan “community” (inasmuch as such a thing exists) and so on. I thought I was blown away at the sheer level of vitriol and dishonest hatred that was cast my way, for daring to vote, even though my vote didn’t even precisely align with Brad’s “slate” in the first place! I thought I was shaken and angered at the nasty things that Theresa Nielsen-Hayden and her husband, that Mercedes *Lackey* for gods sakes! (An author I wanted to meet someday, before she demonstrated, in responding to a comment of mine, just how low an opinion she held of me and those I hold dear) were saying about me, my friends, and authors I, in the way a fan does, loved. I thought…oh hell, screw it. I have great respect for you, Mr. Flint. I have loved your work, and enjoyed reading your opinions, even if I often disagreed with them. But I am not an “unscrupulous schemer.” Nor are my friends, or my family. Nor, for that matter, are Larry, or Brad, or Sarah, or Kate, or Cedar, or Michael Williamson, or any of the other people behind, and involved in, or supportive of (like Mr. Freer seems to be, with the possible addition of John Ringo, in a knee-jerk sort of way) “The Campaign to Prevent Puppy-Related Sadness(2015)”. We may be mistaken, misguided, and irritatingly passionate in a way you disagree with, and that maybe we, were we able to distance ourselves, would find silly or misaimed. We may be simply irritating, and vexingly persistent in pur wrongheadedness. One thing we are most assuredly *not* however, is deliberately dishonest, let alone “unscrupulous[ly]” dedicated to “schemes”. I know I’d be stupid to expect you to alter, or reassess your analysis or opinion based solely on a comment I make to you. I don’t expect that. I am, however, fool enough to hope that you will consider reassessing your “unscrupulous schemers” statement upon review of this comment, and a recheck of the facts upon which that label was/is based. As I said “fool enough” to hope. Either way, I’ll keep reading here, and I’ll try to keep in mind the difference between your saying I (as a supporter/member of “Sad Puppies 3”) am an unscrupulous schemer, and your saying that I am an irredeemably bad person. I’m not being sarcastic, if the text makes it look that way. It’s just difficult for me to put this in perspective, y’know? Your work has gotten me through some hard days, so I may give your words more weight than is precisely fair to you, I freely admit. Whatever your reaction to reading this, and regardless of *whether* you read this, God bless you, sir. I know you are an atheist, bit I am not, so I am more than happy to wish God’s blessings upon you and yours.
        ;-)PS: I am dying inside knowing that there’s going to be a KJ Anderson-Eric Flint collab, but not knowing when…I don’t think having this many endorphins flooding my system can be healthy in the long-term… (Just kidding) (but, seriously, this is cruel and unusual punishment! I mean…) *grin*
        ;-DPPS: pardon the inevitable typos…I’m not good at typing on tiny touchscreen keypads/keyboards.
    • Brad Handley on June 12, 2015 at 2:38 AMJim,
      Sadly you are incorrect. Your statement, “Her comment was out of line and made a lot of people upset. She apologized to those people. ” is giving cover to her. She was asked to retract the statement in the thread. She chose not to.
      She did not apologize to the people she upset. Instead she only apologized to the people she hurt.Sorry,But you are wrong.
13. Nick on June 9, 2015 at 10:11 PMWell said as always Eric. I may not always agree with you on issues, but you’ve always been someone who understands what it means to politely disagree. I have a lot of respect for that. On this, however, I find myself almost completely in agreement with you. Whether or not the puppies were right in their charges (and I tend to think they are), the continuing arguments and mud slinging are damaging the Hugos. Gallo’s “apology” was about as weak and insincere as it gets, but it’s time to be the bigger person and just walk away. Let Irene Gallo and her supporters spew their filth. It just exposes the kind of people they are. If it’s really about getting the best stories the honor they deserve, it’s time to end the personal attacks and counterattacks and focus on the stories. The Sad Puppies have made a couple of tactical mistakes in the campaign and had others forced upon them, but continuing on letting it be about the people involved would be a strategic mistake, a big one.
    • Echo on June 10, 2015 at 3:30 AM“It just exposes the kind of people they are.”
      The kind of people who dominate science fiction publishing? What do we have to walk away from, in that case?
    • Harmony on June 13, 2015 at 5:42 PMI think you are still missing the point that this woman has POWER. As an editor from one of the biggest SF publishing companies she can affect the author’s ability to earn a living. If you hope to publish with TOR at any point in your career are you going to admit to voting for the Sad Puppies? Walking away from the fight sounds great in theory… until you can’t make rent. Even established authors could loose sales if people ignore books based on the rumor that they are racist. She has caused damage and the weak “apology” isn’t going to fix that.I would also argue that continuing arguments and mud slinging are less damaging to the Hugo’s than letting it shrink to the point of being “the best SF from TOR/Orbit/ROC traditional publishing” award. Or “the best SF from liberal authors”.
      • Eric Flint on June 13, 2015 at 7:48 PMFirst of all, Irene Gallo is not an editor. She’s an art director. She has no decision making power over which author does or does not get published. Secondly, even if she were an editor, the power she’d have is limited, especially in a large house like Tor. The simple truth is, as any established author knows, that the power — if you want to call it that — that any author has is overwhelmingly determined by his or her sales. If you can sell a lot of books, you can say damn near anything. If you can’t, you’re likely to be dropped by a publisher even if you fawn over your editors, agree with them on every point both in private and in public — for that matter, offer to hand wash their cars.Publishing is a BUSINESS. Once again, the old Bolshie has to explain the basic facts of capitalist life…
        • James A. Donald on June 15, 2015 at 7:15 AM” If you can sell a lot of books, you can say damn near anything. ”Can John Ringo say anything?If we compare today’s SF books with yesterday’s books, today’s books are an aids infected transvestite projectile vomiting over the audience, berating the audience for racism sexism transphobia islamophobia and the rest.John Ringo sells a lot of books, yet has to curb his tongue rather drastically, is forced to push political views he clearly loathes, forced to speak the lies of his masters.Where is today’s Keith Laumer, who would ridicule democracy in favor of military dictatorship and monarchy.In one of Keith Laumer’s stories, the masses on a terraformed planet are oppressing the elite. The elite escape. Immediately, the big superciency machines that maintain an earthlike environment on the planet fail – “Atlas shrugged” without the lengthy speeches and with way bigger die off. That kind of stuff is not publishable today. John Ringo’s the “last centurion” ends with the military resigning and restoring civilian rule. If he had the freedom that people had in Keith Laumer’s day, would probably have ended with the military setting up a monarchy.
14. dawn on June 9, 2015 at 10:52 PM#WeAreALLSF
15. Synova on June 9, 2015 at 11:16 PM“When faced with the alternatives of being damned if they do and damned if they don’t, almost everyone will keep doing it.”This is very true.When you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, you stop caring. In my own lifetime I’ve watched the accusation of racism go from something to fear and scramble to avoid to something that warrants a shrug and a “f*ck it.” What hasn’t changed, is that those same people are STILL not racist. They (we, whoever) know that it doesn’t matter how much you protest or what evidence you show… the accusation is what is important. And the accusation takes no evidence whatsoever. (If nothing else, you’re racist simply because your ancestors arrived from Europe… so f*ck it.)The Evil League of Evil is exactly that sort of statement… it doesn’t make any of the charter members (or minions racist) or homophobic or sexist, it doesn’t mean that any of their books fail any of the gawd awful stupid check lists… girls talk to girls about something other than boys, characters are “non-binary”, characters are gay… blah blah blah… But one thing is certain, pointing any of that out will (watch the comments after mine) not qualify for one reason or another. Demonstrably, and quite predictably, showing NO bigotry in your personal life also does not qualify. Mentioning it is, in fact, cited as proof of the opposite. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t… the accusation is the game. Full stop. So why not have fun with it, hm? There is no winning. There is no “good enough”. There is no satisfying the accusers. So I’ll proudly identify as a minion of the Evil League of Evil… because that’s just how much respect this all deserves.Twenty years ago I’d be devastated if someone so much as implied I was racist. Today? F*ck it. I own my own honor. The “social justice warriors” can bite me.If you’re trying to convince people that they’re not routinely and thoughtlessly slandered at every turn, you’ve got a long row to hoe, Eric. I do appreciate the effort though. And I love your books.
    • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 5:25 AMI would be misty-eyed if my jaw didn’t hurt like hellfire right now. Regardless, this was awesome. Kudos to you sir. Brava. Excellently said. Thank you. 😉
16. Ardent on June 10, 2015 at 2:26 AMSo.. you’ve read only one of the short listed books.. hardly a position from which to make qualified statements about the bad-to-reprehensibleness of them. And no, having you state that one of the authors is your friend and you will be collaborating with them doesn’t inspire me with confidence as to your judgement or neutrality (Anderson’s collaborations with Frank Herbert’s son are so bad they cause me physical pain).Essentially, the tl/dr version of your post is this: sure, these people are racist and homophobic and rightwing but they’re not Nazis and Irene is a big meany! and she said stuff! So I am defending these racist homophobic rightwingers from the tyranny of a mean lady who said mean stuff about them! Even if they are racist and homophobic and rightwing!C’mon dude. You’re defending someone who has advocated the murder of females getting an education. Of someone who denies that white American men ever rape anyone “any more”.
    • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 5:30 AMYou totally read his post. Oh, wait…no, you couldn’t have if you think your “summary” has anything even vaguely in common with the actual, real world, contents of Mr. Flint’s post. Do yourself a favor, sober up, and reread the post. You are just making yourself sound like a hateful, childish, bigoted, sexist, racist, partisan jackass.
      Good day. 😉
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 5:59 AMMaybe I shouldn’t have used those words? For some reason my comment is in moderation…in essence, my point was you either haven’t read Mr. Flint’s post, or you lack basic reading comprehension. Also, you are demonstrating the same unpleasant tendencies as you accuse the “puppies” of “sure”ly being. All the buzzwords you used as labels, except homophobia…unless you count Mr Beale’s gay supporters, in wish case, that too…are present in your post. Generalizing in an offensive way about women (the new misogyny/sexism)? Check. Generalizing in an offensive way about nonwhites (and whites)? Check. Generalizing/assuming folks from a different political viewpoint are so bad that labeling them with it is a slur? Check and Double Check. Lovely, mate, just lovely. 😉
    • Calbeck on June 10, 2015 at 6:47 AMActually, his post says they’re NOT extremists (with the possible exception of Beale), NOT neo-Nazis (Beale included), NOT racists and NOT homophobes.That you re-assert they are, and then go after no one but Beale himself in order to reinforce your standing bias, only ignores and undermines what Mr. Flint is trying to accomplish.I’ve noticed that you have plenty of company in this forum doing exactly that.
    • Pete M on June 10, 2015 at 9:15 AMI think you could argue with some degree of validity that Beale is sexist, based on his view that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote in indirect democracies, and you could also argue that Beale is racist, based on his view that blacks haven’t been advanced long enough to maintain a civilization.But the claim that he advocates murdering females who get an education is false. He said that the Taliban’s tactic of acid attacks on certain women is rational, in light of their objectives. He didn’t advocate it, or say it was good. Let me make an analogy: the Soviet Union used to send political dissenters to the gulag. In light of their beliefs and ideology, this was a rational thing for them to do. It advances their goals, and it did so in a manner they found acceptable.Does saying that make me pro-gulag?Beale says enough outrageous stuff to justly criticize him for the outrageous things he does say. Is it really necessary to twist the meaning of things he says that aren’t actually outrageous at all?
17. Mike on June 10, 2015 at 3:50 AMBoo hoo and waah waah.
18. Thomas on June 10, 2015 at 4:50 AMHi from Germany.
    Sorry if I sound angry but I am.
    Being a friend of a collaborator with fascists doesn’t make you one yourself.
    But supporting friends no matter what doesn’t make you right, not even a tiny bit.
    I’m rather cautious of using “nazi” in any present context, but: first, “neo-nazi” isn’t the same, and second, it’s a quite common shortcut in Europe for “(neo-)fascist, racist, radical right, völkisch oriented ideologies/parties/movements”. What do you call Signora Mussolini, e.g.?
    I’m pretty sure Beale, Torgersen, Wright etc. won’t dare to publicly state the same in Germany. For horrible historical reasons our laws against Voksverhetzung and the like are rather strong.
    I’m sorry to say but from my perspective your post is much too close to those gentlemen that discussed the virtues and vices of the new Germany in some nice Parisian café or a comfy club back in 1935. Seriously, not even most NSDAP members were nazis in the narrow sense…
    • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 5:50 AMSo your argument is “Germany has no concept of freedom of speech, and some of the people you are defending would be imprisoned in Germany because of that lack of speech protections -replaced by protections *from* speech…not crazy at all- and therefore your defense of your friends is equivalent to Sartre saying that Nazi Germany was a lovely little place, and all the busybodies saying nasty things about Nazi Germany were just ignorant bigots. Oh, and most of the Nazis in Nazi Germany weren’t *really* Nazis… Correct? Or were you trying to say something less utterly laughter-inducing?
      One can hope. 😉
      • Thomas on June 10, 2015 at 11:57 AMBS: Ehm, in my image EF is the friend, BT the collaborator and so on. Methinks you’ve got a little problem of interpreting pronouns.
        Wright and Kratman e.g. at least try to appear as great Vordenkers of a new Golden Age of Strong Men and Loyal Women, united under the one true faith and a strong leader.
        Where I’m from that’s close enough to neo-fascism, just a little more refined than the ususal mob.
      • meh.. blind…suuuure on June 11, 2015 at 1:20 PMWell, we have learned to what uncontrolled free speech leads.
        Zo understand that we are a bit wary..
    • Hampus Eckerman on June 10, 2015 at 6:54 AMBeale thinks the neo-nazi group Golden Dawn are the best alternative for Greece:http://voxday.blogspot.se/2013/06/the-new-dawn-rising.htmlNeo-nazi seems a good description of him.
      • Seymour on June 10, 2015 at 11:26 AMHe actually wrote they are the best of the bad options the Greeks have.You may agree or not, perhaps some other party would be better, I really don’t know.But having a considered opinion you disagree with doesn’t make someone a bad person nor a neo-nazi,
        • Maximillian on June 11, 2015 at 12:28 AMSo your position is that even though he writes approvingly of neo-nazi political parties and is continually saying things about how ‘the Jews have destroyed American exceptionalism’ or that Jews aren’t really equal citizens of any country in Europeor even that non-white people are not equally Homo sapiens… It’s just totally unreasonable for anyone to point out that he has said these things? Really?
          • Seymour on June 13, 2015 at 2:31 PMNo, I wrote that he had an opinion. Argue against his opinion and suggest an alternative, Syriaz perhaps.Not sure why you are bringing his comments about Jews into the discussion, as we know Jews have full equality in European countries so he is wrong they are not citizens of of European countries and I never understood why people believe they are bad or seek to harm the USofA.I went of to find his comments about homo sapiens, from what I found it appears he believes that sub-Saharan Africans are fully homo sapien, it is the Europeans and Asians that he says are not fully homo-sapien. He writes that they have neanderthal and/or denisovan genes. Yes he then claims this makes them smarter, which is a leap without logical foundation, horse hockey I say.
            • Seymour on June 13, 2015 at 2:33 PMThat should have been, “they are citizens of” not “they are not citizens of of”
        • Hampus Eckerman on June 11, 2015 at 4:43 AMThere are a lot of parties in Greece. Reeeally a lot. And you think it is acceptable to say that the neo-nazis are the best of those parties. And doesn’t really know if it is true.This doesn’t make you a neo-nazi, but makes you a person who thinks neo-nazis are kind of ok. And a person I will stay away from.
          • Seymour on June 13, 2015 at 2:39 PMHave any of the other parties done much for Greece?
            Its situation is so wonderful, half the young aren’t unemployed, the health service is fully funded, pensions are being paid. (ps the previous statements are false).
            Is it surprising that people look to parties that claim to have solutions.Would Golden Dawn usher in a golden age, no it wouldn’t but desperate people seek any port in a storm.
    • Pete M on June 10, 2015 at 9:25 AMWright is a Catholic convert and a traditionalist conservative, along the lines of GK Chesterton. Probably the closes literary analogy would be C.S. Lewis. (Unlike Eric I actually like his writing style, though I like Eric’s as well.)Torgerson is a libertarian-ish conservative, married to a black women, who seems pretty universalistic in his views.Both are political conservatives, broadly speaking. Neither is a Nazi or neo-Nazi in any way that makes any sense at all. Nor are they fascist or neo-fascist in any way that makes any sense at all. Fascism and Naziism were ideologies with an actual content; there is almost no overlap between Nazi/fascist content and what they believe.Beale is another matter. In order to judge whether there’s enough overlap to make the term fair when applied to him, I’d have to study his views in some detail, which I lack the energy to do.
      • Thomas on June 10, 2015 at 11:52 AMJust one example:
        Let’s see, what’s the origin of the term, if not the concept of “subhuman”? Oh, well, it’s a translation of German “Untermensch”, which was quite popular for a (much too long) short period.
        Apparently, you can’t appreciate how sick those well-chosen terms and slogans sound coming from a European background.
        But I’m pretty sure Eric Flint is or should be aware of that.
        • Synova on June 12, 2015 at 12:14 AMIf an American started acting like an expert on German politics, you’d rightly think they were an idiot.All the while, what your arguments, all of them, boil down to is this:A lack of emotionalism and not hating the bad people hard enough = agreeing with them and supporting them.It’s completely absurd, not to mention irrational to hold that as some sort of standard.
19. Mike on June 10, 2015 at 12:12 PMIt’s refreshing to see anyone, especially a writer, stand up for the right of free speech, even when they disagree with what is being said.Thank you, Mr. Flint. Maybe there’s hope.
20. Terranovan on June 10, 2015 at 5:59 PMThis seems (to me) like a good (or at least quintessential) topic for a panel discussion at an SF convention. Could this be the case? Any ideas for who would be a good moderator and/or participant?
    • Brad Handley on June 12, 2015 at 2:45 AMIt would be a bait panel. Or worse, a censored panel where no dissenting opinions would be allowed. Like Braina Wu had on Gamergate at RavenCon. She actually requested that no one with an opinion that did not mirror hers, come to the panel. (I use her as an example because she is one of Gallo’s champions right now and I wanted to cite the most recent example of this happening.)
      • snowcrash on June 12, 2015 at 12:30 PMShe actually requested that no one with an opinion that did not mirror hers, come to the panel.This is an outright lie. What she said was as follows:Neither of us wish to discuss the Hugo hijacking with any person responsible for this atrocious action. Both of us would consider it a professional courtesy if you didn’t attend Brianna’s Gamergate panel tomorrow.Let’s all enjoy what brings us together, rather than focus on what brings us apart.
        • Harmony on June 13, 2015 at 6:05 PM“Let’s all enjoy what brings us together, rather than focus on what brings us apart.”Given that she uses the words “hijacking” and “atrocious action” she all but puts up a sign …NO PUPPIES ALLOWED. Otherwise she could have focused on “This is a Gamergate panel, not a Hugo panel. Stay on topic.”
21. Reality Observer on June 11, 2015 at 12:23 AMVeering a bit…The one thing coming from this fracas, that seems to be almost a consensus among all parties, is that the Hugo Awards are broken. (There is a great deal of disagreement on just where the cracks are – whether it is “untrue fans” invading it, “social justice warriors” grasping it ferociously to their bosoms, or “neo-Nazi, racist, homophobes” tramping through the streets in their jackboots.)Mr. Flint has proposed what I consider only a very partial solution – a rather mild reorganization of the length categories. At the same time, however, he has brought up a very important point – the “field” of Science Fiction and Fantasy has grown to just about the size of the State of Kansas. None of us, whether the 40 or 50 people who nominated works in years past, or the 1,000+ who nominated works this year, can possibly have seen the entire extent of it – even if you limit it to the “traditional” publishers annual output (add in all of the tiny presses and the indies, and it is probably impossible to even list all of them).I think it is time for the Hugos to be split, radically, into several genres. As Mr. Flint has noted, if the “paranormal romance” fans ever take notice of the Hugos, that is what we are going to see as the winners for decades to come. So – break it up into smaller countries (while trying, really, really hard, to not follow the example of Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union).Then the best paranormal romance will probably be nominated and win. Myself, I can leave that part of the ballot blank, and spend my energies where I have an honest basis for opinion. (Argh! “Alternate Histories Category.” Flint? DeMarce? Gannon, Huff, Goodlett? Hey! I could have sworn that “The Viennese Waltz” was eligible this year?!?)Of course, this will engender a grand fight over just what the categories should be – and who fits where. I don’t think we need to get down to the point of “best fustian Christian work” or “best homosexual revenge fantasy” – but, if we do, then so be it…
22. Kirk Hawley on June 11, 2015 at 3:34 PMSynova, “Twenty years ago I’d be devastated if someone so much as implied I was racist. Today? F*ck it. I own my own honor. The “social justice warriors” can bite me.”Brilliant.
23. Silly but True on June 13, 2015 at 9:33 AMI’ve started seeing this “double standard” comment a lot: “This is the publisher that housed a known harasser of women (and said nothing), by the way.”To be sure, he means the story about Jim Frenkel and Elise Mathiesen. Methiesen alleged that Frenkel harassed her at WisCon 37 which took place from May 24-27, 2013. On July 11, 2013, Patrick Nielsen Hayden had this to say: “James Frenkel is no longer associated with Tor Books. We wish him the best.”
    https://twitter.com/pnh/status/355330955835224064It took Tor books roughly a month to review a sexual harassment complaint which occurred outside the organization at a company-related function between one of its employees to a non-employee, in this case an industry-related convention for which Tor’s editor’s are expected to put on a company face.Is what Gallo’s defenders really want then is for Tor to ultimately handle Gallo the same way they addressed the Frenkel situation? I think then everyone from both sides would likely finally be happy. (I would suggest to such defenders to beware of what you wish for.)Would Gallo’s defenders _really_ be happier if Doherty had not said anything and fires her in a couple of weeks rather than rebuke her words and move on? I doubt it. That’s why I place this one in the “meaningless posturing” category of arguments.Silly but True
24. J Thomas on June 14, 2015 at 8:33 AM“Words matter—something you’d expect any professional in publishing to understand, even if their specialty is art work.”Words matter — but not very much.What this woman has done is say which side she’s on. That’s pretty much it.Vox Day has said lots of things that are at least as inaccurate, and that lump together very-different groups etc. Some people make excuses for him because they’re on his side. Some people talk about how disgusting he is because they’re opposed.You want her to be fair and balanced, but she’s chosen a side. Once people choose sides they stop doing that.Sometimes people pretend they’re fair after they choose a side. “Let’s all be rational, and polite, and look at the evidence, and agree that my side is right and the other side is wrong.” It doesn’t amount to much. The other side has done a lot of that, it isn’t worse that you do it than that they do it. It mostly doesn’t matter.“The last time I looked, nobody except possibly Theodore Beale (and even with him you’d really have to squint) is calling for the end of social justice in F&SF.”Good. They write whatever they want, and if I think I’ll like it then I’ll read it. If I get on their blogs they tell me I’m a bad person and then they throw me out. No particular harm done. You write whatever you want and I expect I’ll like it. I get the impression that the social justice people want to win, and what winning means to them is they shut up anybody who disagrees. There’s a difference between saying you don’t want them to exist versus saying it’s OK for them to exist as long as they’re impotently yammering with no effect, but I can see how they would not pay attention to that difference. But as long as they are in fact impotently yammering with no effect except to get me occasionally thrown off blogs, I’m fine with them.“The charge which can accurately be laid at the feet of the Sad Puppies is that they are calling for an end (or at least amelioration) of what they believe to be the dominating influence of what they call “social justice warriors” over who gets nominated for and wins the Hugo Award.”That’s a silly position to take. Any member can nominate anybody they want. Any member can vote to rank the top five. If SJWs are winning, it’s because there are more of them. I tend to doubt that it’s true. But the rules are clear, and fair. If you don’t like who wins the election, then win the election. Anyway, the Hugos aren’t that important unless you make them be important in your own mind. I doubt they have a lot of economic value, except maybe occasionally. Why make a big deal about this?Sometimes people will take almost any opportunity to take sides. Just don’t do it, unless you get some special feeling from it that you enjoy.If you put the time you’ve been putting into SP into writing, you will be happier and richer. Your readers will be happier. This is a stupid issue. It has created granfallons that probably should not exist.Look at my example. I talk to SJWs, they yell at me and throw me out. I talk to RPs, they yell at me and I go away. I am at peace with the world, nobody is my enemy, everybody does what they want and we all get along.
25. Stephen R on June 23, 2015 at 12:12 PMMr. Flint — Broadly speaking, I don’t like your politics. But I respect the hell out of a person who actively pursues integrity in debate. Intellectual integrity is something that has become far too rare these days, in the mad pursuit of “win at any cost”.So thank you for this article. It took guts.

← Older Comments

1. Rick Ewald on June 8, 2015 at 8:25 PMVery well put. Thank you.
2. terry banta on June 8, 2015 at 8:47 PMwell thought out, working on my vote for the hugo and this discussion is a big distraction and i agree that one side seems to be filled with unneeded rancor than the other
3. Steve on June 8, 2015 at 8:49 PMMr. Flint, I think I know why integrity is such a defining characteristic of the protagonists in every novel or story of yours I’ve read. Which is a lot and will be more if ever I see a third Trail of Glory book on the shelves or when I find some new-to-me 163x paperbacks (ditto your contributions to the Honorverse).I can’t begin to understand your values or motivations as a person. The autobiographical portions of your May 14th post flat-out mystify me (Why have you put yourself through all that for strangers and people who weren’t you and yours? What’s Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?). But I can tell you’ve got integrity out the wazoo.Beyond that, as far as the details of this post… regarding “Wright’s penchant for fustian prose,” everything he’s written that I’ve tried to read was basically unreadable for me because of it. There may be other writers who could benefit just as much from treating the rules in Strunk & White or “Politics and the English Language” as binding law, but I don’t believe anyone could benefit from it more.
4. Stephen M. Saintonge on June 8, 2015 at 8:50 PM        Thanks, Eric.  That needed to be said, and by someone like you.
5. Jim Butcher on June 8, 2015 at 9:13 PMOh, sure, Flint. Be all /reasonable/.
   • Brad R. Torgersen on June 8, 2015 at 9:58 PM(chortle) I have said it before: Uncle Flint is a guy who makes you love him, even when he’s being gruff or grinchy.
     • Michelle Corsillo on June 9, 2015 at 12:21 AMUncle Eric is the best. He always sees to the heart of the matter, and thankfully is never to shy to speak up.
6. Dave Freer on June 8, 2015 at 9:15 PMEric, the one thing I would ask you to add – before backing you to the hilt on this “That’s it. If you do that, it’s over.”
   is that
   “Retract the statement publicly and issue a simple and straightforward apology. ”Means “retract the statement and issue a simple and straightforward apology.”Not modify, not weasel, not “I’m sorry if it hurt your feelings”.That does not fix.
   • Eric Flint on June 8, 2015 at 9:31 PMI agree, Dave. A real apology means “I’m sorry I said that.” Not “Gee, I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings.” [Left unsaid: “But I didn’t do anything wrong, you thin-skinned jerk.”]It doesn’t have to be long and it doesn’t have to involve any self-flagellation. You don’t have to explain why you said what you’re now apologizing for. But you do have to apologize for it and you do have to retract it.It’s not really that hard. Any person who’s married has learned how to do it — or they’re not going to be married for very long.
     • Dave Freer on June 8, 2015 at 9:44 PM(nod) Your apology to me – many years ago -was simple, honest and completely accepted, and was the foundation of why I regard you as a friend who I defend and trust. You may have forgotten it, but I have not. 🙂
     • Rob Fabian on June 8, 2015 at 10:02 PMShe did issue an “apology” today, apparently at the direct order of Tom Doherty. Unfortunately, she chose the “I’m sorry you were offended” route instead of an actual apology. I wish I could say that I was surprised.
       • Terry on June 9, 2015 at 3:12 AMIsn’t there a difference between “I’m sorry if you were offended” and “I hurt people, and I’m sorry for that”? Gallo’s apology was of the second sort.I understand that some people want Gallo to have to grovel and beg for her job. But that should not be required of an apology from anyone.
         • Joe Vasicek on June 9, 2015 at 3:51 AMHer apology is something, but it only goes halfway. Until she retracts her statements, it’s no more than an “I’m sorry you feel that way” apology, not “I take responsibility for what I said, and it was wrong.”
         • Tully on June 9, 2015 at 2:34 PMHer “apology” was of the “I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy me punching you in the face” sort. In other words, it wasn’t an apology at all.
         • Pete M on June 9, 2015 at 9:57 PMI’m not sure why begging or groveling should matter.She works for Tor Books in a senior capacity. She denigrated (at least by implication) Tor authors, including John C. Wright and Kevin Anderson. If I owned a publishing company, I’d expect my senior employees to refrain from denigrating our authors.
   • Terranovan on June 10, 2015 at 1:26 PMI’ve come across a term in Wikipedia that sounds relevant to this discussion … “Non-apology apology” . I don’t know if it’s correct to apply this to Ms. Gallo’s apology,but it refers to an apology that refuses to admit guilt. An also-relevant proverb: “Never ruin a perfectly good apology with an excuse.”
7. Drak Bibliophile on June 8, 2015 at 9:16 PMTom Doherty has commented on Gallo.http://www.tor.com/2015/06/08/a-message-from-tom-doherty-to-our-readers-and-authors
   • Rick Boatight on June 8, 2015 at 9:58 PMHe claims she has apologized. If so it isn’t on her twitter or facebook.
     • Rob Fabian on June 8, 2015 at 10:03 PMShe buried it in the Facebook thread that started the whole mess. It was a non-apology apology.
   • Brad R. Torgersen on June 8, 2015 at 10:10 PMHonestly, I find both Eric’s commentary and Doherty’s commentary to be a tall pitcher of ice-cold, refreshing, crystal-clear water, in an endless desert of rhetoric. Of which I’ve been on the receiving end (and, yes, occasionally, the giving end) for months.The one thing I can hope to add is: I never had much of a problem with anyone who could state a principled and reasoned position against the technical aspects of Sad Puppies 3, without turning it into a personal thing against myself or Larry Correia; as human beings.So, if I can claim to be disappointed by anything, it’s the rapidity with which Larry Correia and myself were made out to be the worst kind of cretins, and this message was broadcast using all the media apparatus our ad hominem detractors could muster. It didn’t matter if it was true or false. What mattered was the politics of personal destruction.Our mutual character — as human beings: Larry and myself, and also some other members of the Sad Puppies 3 slate — was trotted up to the social media guillotine. And our rhetorical heads came away from our necks.Conversely:I can parlay with Eric. Eric’s critical of Sad Puppies, without telling me I am a bad person. Eric knows me too well. It doesn’t mean he won’t get angry or tell me he thinks I am spouting garbage, but he won’t tell me I am flawed at the core, or that I am a moral or ethical scoundrel, just for doing something he thinks was stupid or incorrect or unhelpful or wrong.Why was it so fantastically hard for so many Sad Puppies critics to address the mechanism, without making it ad hominem against the man?This is probably one of those “Human nature, forever thus” things.
     • snowcrash on June 8, 2015 at 10:42 PMWell said Brad. I hope that you will give Ms Gallo the same consideration as well, as I think people have let their tempers get the better of them far too often. It’s only natural, when they’ve seen their calleagues being attacked in, again, unnecessarily inflammatory terms like the following:http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/04/13/nostradumbass-and-madame-bugblatterfatski/#comment-55499or when writers like Ann Leckie and John Chu are accused of benefiting from affirmative action, instead of the strength of their writing.Regardless, I think you’re right that it’s important to see those in the opposition as still being people, and not just tokens or targets of one’s ire.
       • James May on June 9, 2015 at 1:38 PMWe are not simply accusing them of anything. Did you think we got this out of thin air? They openly advocate affirmative action all the time. Once again the quotes run the spectrum of that SFF community and number in their hundreds. This is not my imagination; I have the actual quotes. They aren’t trying to hide the fact, why are you? It’s all on the net – just read them.
     • Mike on June 8, 2015 at 10:56 PMBrad, I think part of the problem is that you were willing to turn it into a personal thing with all this talk of SWJs and CHORFs and the like. That’s the kind of thing that sounds funny when you are chatting about it with likeminded friends, but it’s also the kind of thing that escalates the rancor of the conversation.
       • Martin L. Shoemaker on June 8, 2015 at 11:25 PMBrad did not invent the term SJW. This is a United Nations paper from 2001: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ASPA/UNPAN000572.pdf
         They coined the term proudly:“Ironically, there is a new warrior for our times; it is the social justice warrior. These warriors fight with words instead of weapons, and wage war within our society instead of on other shores. Taking a stand against the strong forces of the status quo, the new warriors step forth into a high risk environment to speak out against social injustices. These new social justice warriors separate themselves from the crowd by publicly exercising the right to free speech in order to right the social wrongs. With people like Mahatma Ghandi and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. as examples, they speak out on behalf of poor and needy people, the afflicted, and those unfairly discriminated against because of their race, sexual orientation, or disability. At first, they fought for equity- to have the same procedures applied in the same way for all people. But now they speak interms of equality, questioning the disparate effects of these long-established procedures like the ones for funding school districts.Often claiming a moral authority as they speak, these warriors question the motives and moral integrity of those they oppose. Many of their opponents are the established governmental leaders of local communities, states or even the country; other opponents are the industrial and business leaders accused of polluting the air and land and getting special favors for their large campaign contributions. These warriors make accusations about the quid pro quos, the abuses of power and the excessive self-interests that cause social injustice.”Brad started with the term SMOF, but changed when some SMOFs objected that the hostile SMOFs did not speak to them.He changed to SJW — a term some of the antis wore proudly up until this — but then people accused him of using a pejorative term. And again, he did not invent it, and it was not originally a pejorative.So he invented the term CHORF because it was a brand new term with no past baggage. Now you complain about that.Pray tell: what term may Brad use without your objection?
       • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:23 AMIIRC, that was after the first round of libel from the other side.
         • Standback on June 9, 2015 at 2:24 AMPossibly it was?
           But every time *anybody* does it, it only escalates the outrage. It’s a vicious cycle.It starts out with “liberal” or “conservative, ” or with “I didn’t like that book” and “this book should get a Hugo.”Pretty soon it’s SJWs and CHORFs and lying liars and racists and bigots and homophobes. And then, well, by this point it’s a culture war, so people on the other side are fighting against ME and that’s just a horrible thing to do, right?Which is how we get to people saying “those guys are a group of neo-Nazis” and considering that perfectly reasonable and appropriate.Pretty much any post saying “{Person/Group} are bad” will do little but fan the flames. Unfortunately the Internet is too damn big, and SOMEBODY’s always talking shit about SOMEONE. And the flames rise higher.Mr. Flint, you’re a rare island of sense and rationality in this whole mess. Thanks for being able to take each case as it comes, and calling for calm, not war. I wish we had more of you.
       • Wendy S. Delmater on June 9, 2015 at 11:46 AMWhich is why I suggested the term “Puppy Kickers” instead of CHORFs to Brad, and am glad it is catching on. It’s not a value judgement on the people involved; it just has an implication that they should stop their behavior.I was asked to be in an anthology where Vox was eventually dragged in as a potential writer, and I left when he started spewing about SJWs, but not before I told him it was a term I reuse to use as an epithet as it shuts down dialog. It’s basic a sales technique not to mentally shut down you listeners with epithets, doubly important when you are trying to sell an idea or discuss facts.Thank you, Eric, for an excellent post.
         • TK Davis on June 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM“SJW” and “CHORF” and even “puppy-kickers” (I am no proponent of the Sad or Rabid Puppies campaign but imply that I kick puppies and you have a personal fight on your hands. I love my dogs) are all needlessly insulting. I, personally, do not think being a “social justice warrior” is bad but the sneering tone with which it is used and the shorthand for which it stands when used by a conservative do exactly what you say: it shuts down any chance of meaningful dialogue.I don’t cast insults about others (except Vox Day because fuck him with a cactus). The most I will say is that the Sad Puppies legally gamed the system but I find it sad that they are so unhappy that the awards are going to the “wrong” people (when really what they mean is that awards aren’t going to books they like as much as the fans that voted for them). So now the Sad Puppies have injected their own people, who are “the wrong people” to others because THEY don’t like those books as much as the Sad Puppies do, and used a slate mechanism which pretty much guarantees inclusion of the SP choices because no one else in sci-fi fandom can come to such a solid consensus on their own.You rigged the ballots and, yes, people are angry. Characterizing the leaders or members in sweeping terms is not right but neither is Tom Doherty calling out Irene Gallo in public (something he didn’t do for misbehaving male employees) seems like more proof that women really DO still have a tougher time of it in publishing and the world of sci-fi. It’s distressing.
           • Harmony on June 13, 2015 at 6:36 PMIf “SJW” and “CHORF” and even “puppy-kickers” is insulting what do you want to be called? Just let me know and I will switch to it.There are no rigged ballots, Larry and Brad just convinced people to sign up to vote (frequently for the first time) and since the the vote didn’t go Irene’s way they get called racist. Once you call a hispanic and a man married to a black woman racist reasoning with them is useless.
       • James May on June 9, 2015 at 1:33 PM“SJW” is a term that has only come into vogue in a new sense very recently. It is a sarcastic reference to the wrong-way Orwellian anti-racist racist or anti-bigot bigot.Whether you agree with it or not, that’s how it’s used. Anyone who writes a post about white privilege which demonizes all white men on Earth who can’t figure out what “Jewish privilege” might be deserves the term, especially when they write it’s as “obvious” as “gravity.” You simply don’t talk about an entire ethnic group negatively as if they were a single shameful person.When John Scalzi writes it’s a “fact that a lot of male geeks are also emotionally immature,” what fact is that? Would that be compared to non-males? What percentage is “a lot?” Must be one if it’s a “fact.” Was it decided at birth that men were like that? Is that the same kind of fact that would prove black folks are lazy or Jews greedy? Turn this “fact” about men around and what do you get? Yeah, misogyny; the very principle Mr. Scalzi so often and ardently claims he is against.Let’s get real. Has any SP proudly declared they won’t review non-white women? No. Dress that up all you want, if you’re looking for a thing like a racial supremacist and racist, there it is right in front of you. Just ditch the excuses.Adopt a rule, any rule. I don’t even care what it is. Just one we can all live by. If you have a baseball game with a whirling strike zone people will be fighting before the first pitch. Without rules we have nothing as Americans.
         • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 5:28 PMOn “SJWs” and Reality:No matter if clear-headed people think a given term is pejorative and clouds attempts at rational discussion, it remains a fact that there are very strident people who do not WANT a discussion at all.In both the anti-Puppy and anti-GamerGate crowds, that mentality of “shut ’em down” exists: a key example would be a board member of the Society of Professional Journalists getting yelled at for “giving harassers a platform to attack their victims”.This is in direct response to a formal SPJ event planned for August where both GG and anti-GG people will be heard out by neutral journalists. It took little effort to round up a diverse panel of pro-GG people, but anti-GG has dug in their heels asserting “the fix is in” and “there is no debate to be had”. Their most prominent voices say nothing but “shut ’em down”.This has gone so far that a D.C. bar got a visit from the Metro Police, who had been tipped off about a bomb threat from the FBI. The threat, considered “credible” according to police, demanded a 300+ person get-together of GamerGate members be “evacuated in one hour, or the bombs will be detonated”.This is the kind of extremism which comes from painting GGers and Puppies as “racist, homophobic, sexist neo-Nazis” (which various people on this very comments section are busily defending as legitimate accusations).But let me tell you of an encounter I had last night, with someone at least willing to talk. He insisted that GG is guilty of harassing women out of their homes, and I asked if he could substantiate that. He could not — everything was based on assumptions, leaps of logic, and hearsay — and so I told him I have a long history of debunking conspiracy nuts since the ’80s, as kind of a hobby.“So I have to ask you this,” I said, “does your argument really boil down to saying ‘isn’t it obvious’?”“Well,” he responded, “of course it is!”“That,” I told him, “is what every Moon Hoaxer, UFO Nut, JFK Assassination Theorist, and 9/11 Truther I have ever run into end up saying. Why should I believe you and not them?”He cut off our conversation as “unproductive” at that point, but didn’t tag me out when someone else chimed into the discussion. To that person, he argued that “as a white male, I cannot possibly understand or interpret the experiences of a woman”. This was his basis for not questioning anything he was told, and is a common mentality amongst people who describe themselves as “social justice warriors”.They do exist, they do not want to talk, and they do not hear what does not match their existing prejudices. SF/F is supposed to be better than that.
           • Terranovan on June 10, 2015 at 1:33 PMI’m enough of a 1632 fan that if I read the acronym “GG”, I think it stands for “Grantville Gazette”. 🙂
             • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 7:57 PMLol, I saw “Good Group” from MMO random dungeon groups raids. Then I looked it up. I haven’t played videogames (aside from the occasional mobile game) for years, and I’m *still* a gamer nerd, on top of all my other strands of nerdiness. /headdesk.
               Anyway, that was well written, Calbeck. 😉
           • TK Davis on June 11, 2015 at 2:06 PMIf your position is that adherents to the GamerGate name have not harassed women such as Anita Sarkeesian and Briana Wu (and of course Zoe Quinn) in atrocious ways then what you are really saying is that when these women claim to have been harassed that either 1) they lied about it, or 2) the people doing the harassing were not GamerGaters. When the fact that Baldwin came up with the GG name while capitalizing on the “Five Guys” meme and sharing links to Quinn’s nude shots. Ethics in gaming journalism? Where?What a crock.
     • Mariah Maloy on June 9, 2015 at 7:06 AMIn my somewhat short 49 years, I have found that the self-proclaimed Liberals are always ready to be hateful; with my first experience being about 14 years old and being told, by an adult, I was Evil because my parents were going to vote for Reagan. The stories I could tell, and so I don’t talk politics with most of my friends because I don’t want to lose them.Thank you, Mr Flint, for not being hateful.Have a Lovely Day, Y’all!
       • Trevor on June 9, 2015 at 10:04 AMSee, I can say just the opposite. In my shorter 36 years, I find conservatives to be the first to slander and call my an intolerant bigot when I don’t support their “right” to discriminate.I get called it all the time when I challenge conservatives who support discrimination against homosexuals by not allowing same sex marriage.So basically, what you’re trying to do is tar all liberals with that brush, when most people on the opposite side would say the exact same about those who disagree with them. To that I say, please attempt to elevate the discourse, instead of do what you just did.
       • Carol Gibson on June 9, 2015 at 10:32 AMAnd this right here is part of the problem. The labeling of an entire group as bad and then saying but you are different from the rest.I seriously doubt you have interacted with every liberal to form the opinion that all liberals are hateful.I am older by a few years than you and I am self proclaimed liberal and I have many friends who are conservative.I have been attacked by some hateful people who just happen to be conservative because I am disabled and on SAID they feel free to call me names like leech, and lazy.They to put it bluntly are assholes I certainly don’t tar and feather all conservatives for what the fact that some are jerks.
       • James May on June 9, 2015 at 12:57 PMThis is not a problem with liberalism. There is no such thing as a good liberal patriarchy, misogyny, rape culture and white male gaze and a bad conservative one.
     • Carol Gibson on June 9, 2015 at 10:37 AMSo basically the excuse is the age old he started it first mom.It doesn’t really matter who started it first people on both sides have said some appalling things and allowed this to become a nasty blight on fandom.
       • Bibliotheca Servare on June 9, 2015 at 9:41 PM“…People on both sides have said some appalling things…”
         To be brief? Balderdash. Also “bunkum” and “utter hooey” with a sprinkling of “horse hockey!” (Col. Potter from “MASH” introduced me to that delightful non-vulgar epithet…Col. Potter rocked.) on top of that.
         People on “both sides” have absolutely *not* said “appalling things.” Or rather, I suppose that statement depends on what your definition of “appalling” is. My definition leads me to feel that the term (as an earlier poster demonstrated, one that originates from within their own ranks) SJW is in no way as despicably “appalling” a term to use in describing one’s opponent as “Neo-Nazi” is. The same with “CHORF” (nowhere near as appalling as Neo-Nazi). Indeed, if you can demonstrate even *one* occasion when the organizers and authors behind/supported/promoted-by “The Campaign To Prevent Puppy-Related Sadness (2015)” have used any term, or made any allegation, or applied any label that is even in the blasted *vicinity* of being as “appalling” as those labels, terms, etc that have been used by the “Puppy Kickers” (and, though he may disagree with “us” -inasmuch as there *is* an “us”- Mr. Flint is most assuredly *not* a “Puppy Kicker.” He is, if anything, a most respected, honorable, civil voice of disagreement.) to denigrate, defame, and sully the names of the aforementioned organizers, beneficiaries (regardless of active or passive participation) and major supporters of “TCtPP-RS” (“The Campaign To Prevent Puppy-Related-Sadness”) as authors, fathers, wives, husbands, indeed, to sully their very worth as human beings…I will *consider* the possibility that you are not spouting sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, condescending *nonsense* when you say that “…both sides…” have been guilty of equally atrocious and childish behavior, and made equally appalling statements (labels, terms, etc) regarding their opponents. Actually, if you can do that, I’ll temporarily change my handle on this site (3 months sound fair?) to “Contritely Pompous Lackwit” as a demonstration of my shock and consternation. I’ll do it gladly. Just remember, though you may disagree, Theodore Beale is most assuredly *not* one of the “organizers and authors behind/supported/promoted-by ‘The Campaign To Prevent Puppy-Related Sadness (2015)’”. Regardless of what some…lovely, in no way asinine or utterly, unjustifiably rude…conspiracy-theory building individuals might have written on their (equally lovely) blogs about the ” ELoE’ (“Evil League of Evil”) and how its (totally not sardonic or obviously a running gag) “existence” (in quotes because it’s too silly to not emphasize the silliness) “proves” (same reason for quotes) that Theodore Beale was (and is) an integral organizing and supporting member/leader (“even if not openly!!11!!” -exclamation points and “ones” mine…the rest is real…as laughable as that is-) of “The Campaign To Prevent Puppy-Related Sadness (2015)” and as such all the other “members” of the “ELoE” are just as guilty of the statements he makes, and opinions he holds, as he is for making/holding those statements/opinions. Loooooong sentence. *inhales* So…keep that in MIMD when searching for vile statements by “TCtPP-RS” organizers, authors etc. His blog is not the place to go.PS: Mr. Flint…thank you for writing this. I would say more (I think I’ve demonstrated a tendency towards long-windedness, heh) but Mr. Butcher and Mr. Torgersen said it perfectly. Uncle Eric indeed. Bless you, sir. ;-D
8. Stevie on June 8, 2015 at 9:19 PMEricIt wasn’t made whilst you were at the Nebulas, in fact it was a month earlier. VD deliberately waited to use the screenshot a month later because he wanted to smear the Nebula winners.And if someone with your brain hasn’t noticed that little sleight of hand then it’s unsurprising that many others didn’t notice it either.If you care to consult File770 you will see that Mike contacted VD to ask why he’d been sitting on the screenshot for so long. His response is certainly illuminating, though exceedingly unpleasant.
   • Eric Flint on June 8, 2015 at 9:33 PMI did notice the posted date and I wondered about it. But since everyone was acting as if the statement had just been made, I assumed the posting was incorrect.In any event, the specific date the statement was made isn’t really that important.
     • TRX on June 9, 2015 at 8:16 AMPerhaps it’s an indicator of how many people read what she says, or how many care. Or both.
9. Jonna Hayden on June 8, 2015 at 9:21 PMThank you, Mr. Flint, for this. We’re not even remotely of the same political persuasion (and I think we’d have a blast arguing), but I can certainly respect your commitment to your philosophy. I’m with David Freer on this one. Ms. Gallo needs to apologize, and not buried deep in some thread on Facebook.
   • Bibliotheca Servare on June 9, 2015 at 9:42 PMHear hear.
   • TK Davis on June 11, 2015 at 2:10 PMShe made the original comment on her Facebook page. Not sure why, when someone dug her statement from her personal page to begin with that her apology can’t go there as well.Also: Vox Day. How he does love to stir that pot for his own amusement.
10. Tom Kratman on June 8, 2015 at 9:29 PMActually, you read one other short piece, Eric, but it was years ago and somewhat different. No matter; if the Hugo was paper it would save me about 2 cents in toilet paper costs. Were interest a liquid, mine wouldn’t fill a thimble. And crap like Irene Gallo posted has made me actively want to see her and some others get their wish, to have the awards all “no awarded,” and thus to see the award destroyed. (Because the young canines _will_ reciprocate, with interest).
    • Bibliotheca Servare on June 9, 2015 at 9:49 PMMr Kratman…I feel a quote from John Ringo’s “Ravencon AAR” is most apropos here. That being “Genghis Kratman.” (In a good way…if there is such a thing as a bad way to take being called “Genghis”…probably not, I should think) Toilet paper indeed! Thanks for making me laugh, even after having my wisdom teeth yanked and stitches in my mouth. It hurts, but it’s a *good* pain! ;-D
11. Pat Patterson on June 8, 2015 at 9:30 PM@Stevie, you are correct, but are you trying to make a point, or just identifying an error in the chronology? The original post was, in fact, May 11, but only went viral this weekend.
12. snowcrash on June 8, 2015 at 9:34 PMHi Mr FlintJust wanted to mention a couple of things:While I was attending SFWA’s Nebula Awards weekend, the following statement was made on her Facebook page by Irene Gallo in response to a question. (The question was “what are the Sad Puppies”?)Actually, the comment in question was made last month (May 11th), and as Vox Day (as per his own words (http://file770.com/?p=23024) ) was holding them back, presumable as a measure to dial-up the outrage on the Nebula weekend.I also think that her reference to bad-to-reprehensible works to me struck as a reference to the slated items alone, not to all the nominees.Having said that, I agree the that her comment, on her personal FB page a month ago, was poorly worded and painted a variety of people with too wide a brush, and in terms that were needlessly inflammatory.She has since admitted that error, and apologised on her self same FB page, and Tom Doherty has issued a statement on Tor.com.I’m sure that many will feel that her apology doesn’t go far enough in abasing herself, or that Tor should take harsher action.
    • Eick Boatright on June 8, 2015 at 11:51 PMwgt yes, I do think she didn’t go far enought.what she posated is the worst sort of non-apoloogy of the “Im sorry if you were offen ded by what I said” without retracting her words nor apologising for saying them.
    • Kazriko on June 9, 2015 at 12:39 AMI believe of the novels that Eric listed, Skin Game and The Dark Between the Stars were on the SP3 slate, so the arguments regarding those would still apply.
      • snowcrash on June 9, 2015 at 12:48 AMEnh, That may be some level of subjectivity there. I know some people found Dresden’s attitude in Skin Game problematic, but meh. I found it (the book) good and highly readable, but definitely not the best Dresden (Dead Beat!) or the best Butcher (Codex Alera!)KJA I won’t say anything too honest, for fear of offending OGH. But he has certainly put out stuff that I would call bad.Regardless, as per her apology, at least Ms Gallo has acknowledged that she was too hyperbolic in her statements.
        • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:24 AMSorry, I didn’t see an apology. I saw a comment that she didn’t MEAN for us to get upset at being called Nazis. Where is the apology?
          • snowcrash on June 9, 2015 at 1:55 AMAbout my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.In the above, Ms Gallo: 1. Took responsibility for her actions, 2. Acknowledged her mistake, 3. Apologized for those she hurt. (also 1.5 – indemnified her employer, which any HR would have insisted on!)I’ve seen actual fauxpologies – ie weaselly terms like “oh if I offended anyone” or “mistakes were made”. This isn’t it. She’s owned up, and admitted that people were hurt by her actions.I suspect that what you want is some further form of abasement, or what Brad Torgersen calls hiding a joy buzzer.
            • Barbara Alsop on June 9, 2015 at 5:22 AMI’m afraid I disagree. I am not affiliated with either the Sad Puppies or the Rabid Puppies, so I could not be hurt by her statement. I could however be deeply offended by her cavalier use of the term neo-Nazi. So she did not apologize to those like me on the sidelines. I was also offended that she called the women of Sad Puppies misogynists. That was either colossally stupid or irredeemably nasty. As for her so-called apology, in effect she said “I was a little over the top and wasn’t speaking for my employer, and so sorry if what I said hurt you.” That is neither a retraction nor an apology that reaches everyone who was offended by her terminology.
              • snowcrash on June 9, 2015 at 7:35 AM“I was a little over the top and wasn’t speaking for my employer, and so sorry if what I said hurt you.”If she had said that, that would have been a non-apology, and I would be gravely disappointed . But she did not. She didn’t weasel her way out by saying “*if* anyone was offended”. She owned up that her words hurt people, and apologised to them.Pushing this line that it was a non-apology indicates to me that you don’t really understand what a non-apology is, or that you are doing what Brad Torgersen described as exploiting an apology for further attack.
            • Rick Boatright on June 9, 2015 at 11:13 AMI’m sorry, but I have to disagree with your take on her apology.I’ll give you (1) that she took responsibility for her actions. Clearly, she did, as you said, thus saving her job.In regard to (2) acknowledging her mistake, I’m afraid not. She said ” I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. At its most generous, this says that there are some in the puppies effort who are right wing extremist, neo-nazi racist homophobes, but not all of them, specifically, not the ones published by Tor or who are Hugo winners.In regard to (3) we have I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments. Please note the difference between that and “I apologize for making those incorrect and offensive statements.”What she said was that she apologised to the people who where HURT by what she said. She didn’t say “I apologize for what I said.” — very different.Thi is not a “class one” weasel word apology, it’s better than that, but it is clearly a “class two” weasel word, rather than a decent public “falling on my sword” apology stating in public “I was wrong.”I know all about the latter. Feel free to google examples of my fixing my public stupidities.-_ Rick
              • snowcrash on June 9, 2015 at 12:50 PM“At its most generous, this says that there are some in the puppies effort who are right wing extremist, neo-nazi racist homophobes, but not all of them”To be entirely honest, there is a reasonable arguement to be made that this is not incorrect. You just have to google some of the more egregious statements by Vox Day, & John C Wright.They’ve both made statements that are homophobic and misogynistic, and Day has also made some clearly racist statements (as Eric notes in his OP).As such, Ms Gallo may simply be being honest when she acknowledges that she has painted too broad a brush.
              • Max on June 10, 2015 at 4:26 AMYes, it does imply that there are some puppies who are neo-Nazis. And she’s not wrong. From Vox Day’s blog, per Mamatas:a. that different “races” are subspecies and that mixing them tends to spark civilizational collapse, http://voxday.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/mailvox-time-preferences-and.htmlb. that the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn of Greece the lesser evil as compared to mainstream pro-EU parties, http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-new-dawn-rising.htmlc. regarding Jews, that [t]oo many of us know how the game is played; too many of us have seen incompetent, inept, and lazy Jews advanced in tribal fashion over far more capable, competent, and responsible Gentiles. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/and-why-might-that-be.htmlA literal neo-Nazi? No. Views that are very, very close to those of literal neo-Nazis? Yes.
13. Chris Backus on June 8, 2015 at 9:39 PMYou mention that this damages your side of the argument, but don’t you see, it doesn’t just damage your side of the argument, it completely validates the Sad Puppy case. Every editor for Tor who has spoken (not counting Tom Doherty’s response which was neutral to conciliatory) has been against the Sad Puppies, where this one is vicious, reprehensible, and clearly untrue.So, is there bias or is there not?
    • Eric Flint on June 8, 2015 at 10:13 PMI will answer your question in my next post and show how… um (be diplomatic, Flint, be diplomatic…) it is completely irrelevant.Beyond that, as is always the case with the Sad Puppies and their supporters, you seem to be constitutionally incapable of telling the difference between “bias” and “disagreement.” Simply because someone tells you that you are wrong — even in harsh language — does not mean that they are “biased.” It simply means that they think you are wrong.I did not criticize Irene Gallo because she stated (as harshly and nastily as she felt like) that the Sad Puppies were wrong in their analysis of what happens with the Hugo Awards and were being pigheadedly stupid in their approach. I have and will continue to say that myself. What I criticized her for was her actual BIAS, which was her statement that the Sad Puppies were — to quote her — unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic when she had no evidence supporting the statement but was operating solely based on her belief (that is to say, her bias) of what right-wingers “must” really believe.If you can’t see the difference, that’s not my problem.
      • Michael Z. Williamson on June 8, 2015 at 10:34 PMEric: See my comment below about deliberate dishonesty from deliberate misquotes of my work.They are dishonest. It is a fact.
      • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 7:45 PMHere is part of the reason I’ve become involved in Sad Puppies and the Hugos. This is directly from David Gerrold’s current Facebook page:“The chief architect was Vox Day. He brought in gamergaters to vote for his rabid puppy slate. He told them to vote for the candidates on his slate as a way to stick it to the establishment, not because any of them were award-worthy.”There is simply not enough facepalm for this. It’s Pure, 100%, Grade AAA Horseshit. “Stick it to the establishment?” F***ing REALLY?We don’t care what’s “establishment” or not… but use of that term suggests this tripe came not from anyone who knows any GamerGate members, but someone who authentically believes GG is about burning down establishments just ’cause, y’know, fire is cool huhuhuhuuhuhuh.And we DIDN’T care about the Hugos until people started blaming us for their outcome and whipping up even more press about how we’re all supposed to be a bunch of sexist racist homophobic white male assholes. I’d suggest that anyone who finds the taste of crow delicious show up at the August event of the Society of Professional Journalists down in Florida. Anyone who likes being laughed at can use the “bunch of sexist racist homophobic white male assholes” at that time; points if you can keep a straight face while doing it.For this crap alone, Gerrold owes ME a goddamn apology.
    • Michael Z. Williamson on June 8, 2015 at 10:19 PMIndeed. Every statement out of Tor employees proves they do have a personal bias, and strongly suggests that it was an organized bias, since they were apparently aware BEFORE the Hugo announcements of who was on the ballot.This doesn’t mean the committee was dishonest, and I’m sure, from my dealings with them, that they are absolutely above board and of the highest integrity.What is suggests is they spoke amongst themselves about who of their expected nominees had not been informed.Add to that Mr Gerrold commenting that he was “looking forward” to congratulating Connie Willis on yet another award.This does not prove complicity, but it does strongly suggest an incestuous in-group.And back to the root point–TNH made a deliberate point of combing through my snark to find out of context comments to call me a “homophobe” when anyone who knows me is aware I’m exactly the opposite.So yes, their behavior does prove a bias based on (perceived) politics rather than writing quality.Game, set, match.
      • Jason on June 8, 2015 at 11:29 PMExcept David Gerrard never said that as he posted below. Hope you do the right thing and apologize . . .
        • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:25 AMYes, he did. It’s entirely possible he edited the post after the fact, but he went on a long rant about how much he’d been looking forward to the Hugos, and now they were ruined by those conservatives, and maybe he wouldn’t do it after all, and perhaps he’d get gay cooties all over the statues (his words).
          • Tibicina on June 9, 2015 at 7:25 AMUmmm. What he actually said about Connie Willis was that he had looked forward to asking her to hand out the Campbell award, but she felt the need to decline. I suspect you are either misremembering or conflating, though if I were to go by your example of how you treat other people, we could call game, set match here to show that you are a biased liar.Perhaps you should apologize unless you have some sort of record that shows you are not just remembering what you want to remember instead of what actually happened.
          • snowcrash on June 9, 2015 at 11:07 AMPosts edited in Facebook will actually 1. have a label “Edited” on them, and 2. Show the prior versions – you just have to click the Edited label to see the history of edits.Uhm, Yahtzee?
          • jason on June 9, 2015 at 9:51 PMAs someone posted earlier: “deliberate dishonesty from deliberate misquotes . . . They are dishonest. It is a fact.”
      • James on June 8, 2015 at 11:32 PMAlas, Connie Willis wasn’t even nominated for a Hugo this year, so, how could Mr. Gerrold have stated what you’re attributing to him?
        • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:26 AMYes, that is the question, isn’t it?
          • Michael Smith on June 9, 2015 at 10:52 AMClearly, the answer is that Williamson’s claim is a fabrication.
          • Mark Ramsey on June 9, 2015 at 6:21 PMMr. Williamson, you have erred with regards to Mr. Gerrold. He did not in fact make the statement you have attributed to him. You are of course free to entertain your conspiracy theories but please have the decency to not invent evidence to support them. As per your own stated moral code, this is the moment in which you issue a true apology and not a “weasel” apology or further excuse your mistake with additional lies.
      • Billy Coley on June 8, 2015 at 11:57 PMI have had a lot of posts from both sides pop up on my newsfeed in the last few months. I have been reading posts for both sides and which side I come down on was decided by what came from each side, not what they said about each other. The problem I have had the most (other than the overall grammar school feel of the whole situation) is the fact that there is a lot of unneeded venom coming from both sides. There are people on both sides being, to be blunt, asshats. Slinging venom, distorting facts/quotes/etc, or outright lying.. and then yelling that, “(even though I am doing it) the other side is doing it so it proves I am right”Does it define the whole of both sides? No. But what is telling (again going by what has come across my newsfeeds) that there are fewer on one side that have been trying to separate themselves from the extremes.(disclosure: I am a new Hugo voter.. and even though I have submitted my ballot, I still have avoided any list of slates.. there have been a few of the nominees that have been mentioned individually in various places, but overall, I still have no clue whether the nominees I voted for were any any slate or not (unless there was a mention in the voting packets themselves). I voted purely on the merits of the works themselves.)
14. Byron Clark on June 8, 2015 at 9:40 PMVery well written piece, I agree with Dave Freer also. But I disagree about Anderson, I like his stuff. Thanks for posting this, you are one of the voices for sanity in this business, and I appreciate that.
15. Kary English on June 8, 2015 at 9:44 PMThank you, Eric.
16. Laura Resnick on June 8, 2015 at 9:53 PMActually, Gallo didn’t make this statement while you were at the Nebulas this weekend. She made it nearly a month ago, buried within a conversation on her Facebook wall. (The screencap of her FB comment is dated May 11, IIIRC.)Vox Day has confirmed (his statement is featured on File 770 today) that he saw the comment when it was made several weeks ago and that he held onto this “ammunition” until he was ready to use it.For whatever reason, this happened to be the weekend that VD chose to draw attention to the comment. (Perhaps because he it was a slow day for his outrage machine, and so he needed to fall back on old scraps to manufacture some more? Perhaps to distract focus from announcement of Nebula winners? Perhaps because the moon is in Aquarius and Sirius aligns with Mars? Who the hell knows?)
    • Laura Resnick on June 8, 2015 at 9:57 PMOops, I see this info was already posted above. Never mind.
    • Michael Z. Williamson on June 8, 2015 at 10:20 PMWhen it was made is irrelevant to the fact it was made.
      • Terry on June 9, 2015 at 3:24 AMWell, no, actually, it’s not. If anyone actually was hurt by the statement, in any way, shape or form, the hurt would have taken place at the time the statement was first published. Further publication of the statement by Vox Day makes HIM the one responsible for the damages that arise from the dissemination of what he terms a libel. (It’s actually not, but no real need to go all legal on you about it.) You don’t get to hit yourself in the head with my baseball bat and then claim that your concussion resulted from my ownership of the baseball bat with no additional agency by any other actor.
        • Kevin Marks on June 9, 2015 at 8:48 AMWrong, Terry. Incredibly poor analogy, for one thing. More importantly, you’re trying to whitewash the fact that Gallo said what she said, period.Williamson prevails. He’s right.
        • Richard Hartman on June 9, 2015 at 4:04 PMThe hurt does not take place when it was published. The hurt takes place when it comes to our attention. Why VD didn’t circulate it earlier? I don’t know. And I don’t care. When I read the posting, however, I was incredibly offended. When it was originally written has no bearing upon that.
          • Lenora Rose on June 10, 2015 at 12:54 AMThe hurt would not have happened, period, without Day’s intervention. And I am fairly sure him putting it forth on the weekend when the Nebulas were awarded, the awards given by the SFWA, aka a group from whom Day is the second member ever to be forcibly ejected, is non-coincidental. Certainly, whatever his actual intent, the result was to drown out the triumph of those award winners. (of course, that’s another award he thinks is excessively biased towards liberals…)
        • Harmony on June 13, 2015 at 7:26 PMHaving a high level TOR editor expound her views against the SP group is damaging to the authors involved even if only a small group of her coworkers see it. I admit TOR publishing didn’t take the hit until the quote went viral thanks to Vox. In this case forcing a apology out of her might at least reign in the vitriol.
      • Carol Gibson on June 9, 2015 at 10:47 AMI disagree if he was so outraged and offended why wait to speak up about it? Vox Day is a consummate troll he lives to stir outrage and that is exactly what he has done.And no this is not a whitewash of Gallo. I find what she said to be highly inappropriate and unprofessional.
17. Lenora Rose on June 8, 2015 at 9:53 PM@ Pat Patterson Re Stevie’s comment: I also think it’s worth noting that it went viral this weekend because someone who took a screenshot of it when it was two hours old chose to release it to his followers this weekend. I won’t speculate on Day’s motives, because he hasn’t said anything other than that he “doesn’t use all his ammunition at once” (paraphrased), and it doesn’t make Gallo’s words any nicer or more appropriate (yes I do feel the apology she has now issued was right and necessary), but it does suggest they might have vanished without comment or impact had he not brought them up.
    • Rick Boatight on June 8, 2015 at 9:59 PMWhere is the apology?
      • Mary Frances on June 8, 2015 at 10:02 PMIn the comments on her FaceBook page, which is where the original comment was–same thread, I believe. It seemed an appropriate venue for an apology to me, for that reason: Gallo didn’t take the original comment (and it was a comment, a response to a question, not a post) viral, after all.
        • Michael Z. Williamson on June 8, 2015 at 10:21 PMCan you quote the apology for those of us who can’t see it, being prohibited from it?When it applies to us?
          • Mary Frances on June 8, 2015 at 10:24 PMIt’s up on File 770, along with a copy of Tom Doherty’s open letter–with the relevant links, too, I believe. I’m pretty sure the FaceBook thread is still public, too, as it was originally.
            • Michael Z. Williamson on June 8, 2015 at 10:31 PMYes, but a number of us were blocked on FB when we (at first, politely), asked her to retract the comment, only to be met with the morally corrupt response of “Kitteh?” and a cat picture.Being still blocked, we cannot see it.As I was taught, as a youth and in the military, an apology should, if possible, be addressed individually. As the names of the Puppy nominees are very publicly available, that is how it should be addressed.Do you have a link to the F770?Others have said it was a very shallow non-apology. I’d like to see for myself.
              • Mary Frances on June 8, 2015 at 10:36 PMWell, I’ll try–but I usually have no problem getting to File 770 just be googling “File 770” or “File 770.com” and clinking on the first hit. But anyway: link.If I’ve messed up the link, I apologize–I’m really very good at embedding links. Maybe someone else ecould try?
              • Mary Frances on June 8, 2015 at 10:39 PMOh, dear–three different typos in the previous message, including leaving on the “not” in the final sentence (as in “I’m not very good at embedding links”). I’m also obviously not very good at proofreading before posting . . .
              • Tracy on June 8, 2015 at 10:40 PM“the morally corrupt response of “Kitteh?” and a cat picture.”There is nothing morally corrupt about cat pictures. Nor is there anything morally corrupt about the word “kitteh”. That you think there is . . . wow. Just, wow.
              • Reality Observer on June 8, 2015 at 11:31 PMWell, it’s the top post (30 seconds ago, anyway). Quote:“About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.”As noted – one of those “I’m sorry I called you a bastard, even though you are one.” type of apologies.Sorry, Eric, but it looks like the poo is still going to fly for a while yet.
              • Mike on June 9, 2015 at 12:15 AMHere is the F770 thread:http://file770.com/?p=23028&cpage=1#commentsThe quote is, “About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.”Which is a bit different from the kind of response that the OP here suggested, but I expect that it will be the extent of the reply.
              • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:28 AM” I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.”Oh, fuck, no. That is not an apology. “My comments were out of line, and I should not have made them” is an apology.“I’m sorry you’re unhappy I called you a nazi” is not an apology.How about (strictly hypothetically, this is to prove a point), I call you a “child molesting cunt” and then say, “I’m sorry you were upset by my comments”? All good?As to the “Kitteh” posts, let me elaborate, since you seem to have missed the point.“Neo-nazi.”“Excuse me, I object to being called a neo-Nazi.”“Kitteh?”It is dismissive, and proves she stood by the statement even when challenged.Her non-apology likewise.
              • Tracy on June 9, 2015 at 4:25 AM(This is actually a reply to your comment below, which won’t let me reply directly to it.)I looked back at the original Facebook thread, and it looks like Ms. Gallo started posting cat pictures when people (including you) suddenly showed up en masse, demanding to know why she’d called Jim Butcher and Kevin J Anderson “nazis”. Which . . . she didn’t. Just being on a slate does not indicate a person is a puppy, first of all. (And I don’t recall either of them cheering on Vox, so why would anyone assume they were Rabid Puppies? Why would anyone assume you were a Rabid Puppy?) And what she said was that the puppies ran a gamut that included apparent neo-nazis on the Rabid side (which seems like a valid assessment of Vox Day to me), which certainly didn’t read to me like she meant that all of the Puppies were neo-nazis, or all of the candidates on the slates were neo-nazis.Cat pictures usually cause people to relax, (and mutter things like “kitteh!”, which causes further relaxation), which I suspect is why she started posting them when a bunch of screaming people suddenly descended out of nowhere on a month-old Facebook post, yelling about how she’d called a bunch of people nazis.If you don’t like her apology, that’s your business. If you read her words as calling you a nazi, all I can say is that I read the same post and I didn’t see that at all. If she’d announced that Michael Z. Williamson was a neo-nazi, I’d think your demand for a personal apology was valid. As it stands right now, your absolute certainty that you were called a nazi seems unsupported to me. (And your complaint that she failed to apologize for calling you a nazi kind of assumes that she believes she did call you a nazi, by the way. If she doesn’t, then “I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments” seems perfectly appropriate, in my view.)And cat pictures are never, ever, ever a morally corrupt response to anything. I think the vitriol right now could do with quite a few more cat pictures. People really need to calm down, and cats are adorable.
            • Kevin Marks on June 9, 2015 at 8:55 AMTracy, please give it up. Your logic, such as it is, fails on its face. We get that you want to defend Gallo and minimize the damage she has done—and continues to do—to herself. Fine. But please stop with your reassurances to all of us that, um, “it’s raining”….
              • Carol Gibson on June 9, 2015 at 10:49 AMAnd it seems to be that you refuse to see anything that does not totally obliterate Gallo as white washing.
18. Calbeck on June 8, 2015 at 10:19 PMAllow me to speak here as a long-time SF/F fan who is also a member of the #GamerGate movement.I won’t preach about our own positions and whatnot, because that’s irrelevant here. What IS relevant is that Ms. Gallo is not the first to make the claim of our movement being in some part responsible for the success of the Puppies; in fact, others have asserted so much as that the SP slate could not have passed without “importing” co-opted GGers.The reality is, the Hugos were not remotely on the GG radar at the time of the nominations. A few Pups had shown up and pointed out the controversy, but they were not exactly zealous in trying to enlist our help, nor were we interested in signing on to shift our energies towards a fight that had nothing to do with ethics in games journalism. That is because our general rule is “#GamerGate is not your personal army”, a point we have made to other celebs who have tried to enlist us for their unrelated political wars (ex: David Draiman, who wanted us to endorse Israel against Palestinians).That position of neutrality on the Hugos changed when major news outlets began reporting — at face value — the same talking-points Ms. Gallo spat out, including the one about collusion, which surprised the hell out of us. All the usual nonsense about all of us being “extreme right-wing racists trying to stop progressive thought” were trotted out, with some pundits going straight for the “neo-nazi” pole. One guy in particular referred to #GamerGate and the Puppies in toto as “Panzergroup Asshole”.We have been getting lied about for most of a year now, non-stop, in the mainstream press, and now people like Ms. Gallo have been jumping the fence to take steaming rhetorical craps in our backyard. Since we have been forced to address and debunk various claims of harassment in the press, now we had this mess to clean up too, because WITHOUT doing so, we can’t get any traction for the actual issue of JOURNALISTS NEEDING TO BE HELD TO ETHICAL GORRAM STANDARDS.“No no, that’s all a smokescreen! You want women out of gaming!”Doesn’t that sound one helluva lot like “no no, you Puppies don’t want an open and inclusive award system for the Hugos, you just want to dial the clock back to the 1950s”?Mr. Flint, as I’ve said before, I have a lot of respect for your intellect. I hope you can see what’s going on here. No, not a “conspiracy” — just a whole lot of people whose notion of “social justice” has gone so far extreme that to them, there’s no such thing as a conservative who ISN’T a neo-nazi racist anti-feminist scumbag.
    • Johnny on June 9, 2015 at 11:40 AMI have honestly never understood how a review of an indie game on steam mattered for “journalism ethics”. The gigantic overresponse- and the utterly inappropriate type of response of so many gaters- completely poisoned the well for me.
      • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 3:29 PMSounds like you got bad information.Usually, people who chew out GamerGate over this claim there was no review at all. And technically, that’s true. The article purported to cover fifty games which had just been “Greenlit” on Steam. It simply gave this one particular game top billing, worked its name into the article’s title, and used graphics from it — a text game, by the by — for the sole picture in the article.None of which would have been a big deal, except for the developer being a long-time friend of the reporter, the reporter’s name being in the game’s credits, and their relationship going sexual within a week of the article’s publication.There is a term in journalism called “quid pro quo”, and it’s a huge no-no… but the excuse, in this case, is that it’s “all about sex” (which, as already noted, it wasn’t).How did this explode into a “gigantic overresponse”? Because complaints about the matter were quickly deleted and people banned from the offending site’s forums. Then from the forums of other news sites where they went to complain about being banned for complaining.In all cases, it was claimed that having issues with this particular quid pro quo case meant you were harassing the developer, who herself had already been caught falsifying claims of harassment (which The Escapist Magazine later had to retract on that basis). This mentality went so far as one news editor demanding an editor-in-chief for a completely different site similarly shut down all such discussion on grounds that it was blanketly considered to be harassment. This was the point I personally took notice, as editors began declaring their sites “private property” (true) and that censorship doesn’t exist unless imposed by the government (malarkey).That’s what’s called “The Streisand Effect”: when an attempt at silencing discussion results in a snowballing of the matter as people react to what the general public considers censorship to actually be (regardless of the opinions of various news editors).So what you’re apparently concerned about isn’t the explosion over the affair itself, which was minor and probably would have fizzled on its own over the course of a few weeks. You’re annoyed by the reaction to mass-censorship and its exportation to sites the censors did not even have authority over but thought they could bully into following their lead.
        • James May on June 10, 2015 at 2:35 AMI agree. Tor’s moderation policy together with its inflammatory articles amounting to racial incitement and things like “banhammers” have done as much to create this anti-intersectional movement as anything. If you stifle debate people will not only go elsewhere and create their own platforms but are going to be hopping mad.
        • TK Davis on June 11, 2015 at 2:27 PMNone of which explains why Quinn was the target and not the journalist. Why her sex life, when sex happened before the “review”, is anyone’s business.GamerGate also took umbrage at articles saying “Gamers are dead” which were meant to report on how the identity “Gamer” was no longer an insular, usually-young, usually-male demographic now that social media games had opened things up and more women from soccer moms to grandmothers to punk girls were playing. It was a celebration of diversification, not an ill-wish on the core young-white-male audience. But somehow this was seen as insulting and threatening and GG attacked.It’s ridiculous.
19. Brad R. Torgersen on June 8, 2015 at 10:22 PMEric brought up something which might not get as much attention, but which I think is a very important piece of the puzzle: can an apology be made (in the current atmosphere) and be accepted sincerely, for being sincere? I’ve expressed to Eric privately that my trust in the sincerity of certain individuals (who I won’t name here) has been damaged almost to the point of no return. And that hurts me. I am, by nature, a trusting individual. Which tends to go hand-in-hand with loyalty. If a person — like Larry Correia — earns my loyalty and my trust, there is very little Larry could say or do that would upset me, and which a simple apology wouldn’t put right almost instantly.Because we live in the 21st century and our discourse is so thoroughly dominated by what we might call “news cycle style” argument tactics, trust gets washed down the toilet almost immediately. Because the point of the argument is not to persuade or reach an understanding — seal the breach, so to speak — it’s to score points and make hits; every sign of weakness given by the foe, must be exploited. For the spectator sport of it. Therefore an apology is going to be exploited for maximum damage effect. Apologies are weakness under the rules of “news cycle style” argument. So we are advised to never, ever apologize. Ever.And it’s true. I personally have experienced this. A recent apology on my part — not to Eric, this was a different individual — was exploited for maximum damage effect. “News cycle style” form was obeyed to a tee. Suffice to say, I am not sure I can ever trust that specific individual, because I’ve been shown (for not the first time) that as soon as I put a hand out, there is a joy buzzer hidden in the other guy’s palm.I think Eric would like to eliminate all joy buzzers.I think this is a grand sentiment. I would love for it to be so.But the people who consider joy buzzers essential to their modes and tactics, may not be so quick to give them up — and even then, there may be an endless array of joy buzzers, hidden in pockets.So, I tend to cherish people I can trust — and Eric is one of those, as is Kevin J. Anderson, and Larry Correia, and I would also include Dave Freer and Sarah A. Hoyt, as well as Mike Resnick; Mike’s critical of Sad Puppies too, believe it or not — but I am almost violently repelled by people I perceive to be in love with their joy buzzers.
    • Calbeck on June 8, 2015 at 11:14 PMOne thing I’m glad of is that here in the Hugos fracas, there are at least SOME neutrals whom both sides know and can trust. There is a chance for real dialogue and peace-brokering through those specific people… a chance, anyways.In the GamerGate fracas, virtually no such persons exist on either side, largely because when neutrals of some stature DO show up and offer to provide a ground for discussion, they come under near-rabid attack. Neutrality simply is not tolerated by certain folks: “if you don’t denounce X for crimes A, B and C, then you condone that behavior and are exactly like them and their allies!”I could get into more detail but won’t, sufficing to say that this has actually been a major source of recruitment for GG over the last several months. Nothing quite like being called an ultra-fascist out of the blue merely for not accepting one side’s claims as being 100% absolutely correct, after all.Here in the SP affair, that attitude seems relatively rare, and that’s a damned good thing.
    • snowcrash on June 8, 2015 at 11:21 PMUnfortunately that is always true. There are already people (ie Dave Freer and Rob Fabian here) who have determined that Ms Gallo’s apology is insufficiently self-abasing, or that Tor should be harsher to her beyond a public disapproval of her statements.No doubt they think that they are right, just as I’m sure the those who exploited your prior apology thought that they were right in criticising the mode and nature of your apology. But sometimes it’s important to de-escalate. To be the better man.Some people will attack no matter what, but given your thoughts and experiences, Brad, I hope that you will accept Ms Gallo’s apology on it’s own terms, and disapprove of anyone who has a joy buzzer in their hands.
      • Martin L. Shoemaker on June 8, 2015 at 11:33 PMYou might want to scroll back in the comments. You’ll see that Eric also thinks her apology was insufficient. It was not “I was wrong,” it was “I’m sorry you think I was wrong.” That’s blameshifting from her to the readers and to her original targets.
        • snowcrash on June 9, 2015 at 12:29 AMIf you’re referring to the comment in reply to Dave Freer, I don’t think Mr Flint isn’t talking about Ms Gallo’s apology, he’s talking about how he sees an apology should be. I’m not sure if he’s seen Ms Gallo’s apology – I haven’t, I’m going by what Mike Glyer posted in his File770 article.I may be (and often am!) incorrect, and if so, I’m sure I’ll get dinged for it 🙂
          • Martin L. Shoemaker on June 9, 2015 at 12:50 AMI saw one from her earlier today that was definitely of the “I’m sorry you’re upset” sort. She may have made a better one since. I hope she has.
            • snowcrash on June 9, 2015 at 1:13 AMWell, she apologised to those she offended, and acknowledged that she painted with too wide a brush.Insisting she goes beyond that comes close to what I call demands for further abasement and what Brad calls hiding joy buzzers, I think .
              • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:30 AMAs I posted above:” I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.”Oh, fuck, no. That is not an apology. “My comments were out of line, and I should not have made them” is an apology.“I’m sorry you’re unhappy I called you a nazi” is not an apology.
              • Richard Hartman on June 9, 2015 at 4:20 PMShe NEVER said that what she said was wrong. Only that it was too broad.To say that she painted with too broad a brush is to say that there are some people for whom that brush was — and still is — intended.So … she still believes that there are neo-Nazis involved, and that some of the works are still “bad-to-reprehensible”. Just not _all_ of them.Have I summarized accurately?If any of these things are true, she should name specific targets, so as not to use too broad a brush.If these things are NOT true, she should apologize for the STATEMENTS she made, not for our REACTIONS to those statements. Which, really, is all she did.
      • Reality Observer on June 10, 2015 at 11:48 PMWell, this won’t do any good with you, snowcrash – I know you too well from other sites.But I just ran a thought experiment. I used to work for a manufacturer of irrigation equipment. They developed a pop-up sprinkler that was very resistant to impacts – such as from someone driving over them with a tractor.Now, if I had, on my *personal* social media, said “Hey, I am so proud to have had a hand in developing this sprinkler head! It will be especially welcome new for all of those golf course owners who deal with their stupid Mexican illegals!” Then apologized (*after* being called out for my blatant hate) with “I’m sorry I hurt the feelings of those poor stupid Mexican illegals.”Um. Escorted *out* of the building. They probably would have “forgotten” to open the glass doors first.There used to be something called professionalism. Apparently it has never been heard of at Tor, below the office occupied by Mr. Doherty.
    • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 6:00 AMBrad, you metaphorically offended an entire room of people, then issued an apology to the guy who happened to be standing in front of you when you spoke, who was the least offended person in the room.
      Apologies go to the affected parties for the offense caused to them, not a convenient proxy.
      • BRT_admin on June 9, 2015 at 9:28 AMMark: are you the appointed spokesperson of this supposed room? Or is this merely another example of “news cycle” tactics, wherein the goal posts keep getting moved, so that your opponent can never be clean? There is never any reaching of any finish line? Your opponent crawls to the end zone, so you push the goal posts back 20 more yards, and tell your opponent he’s still not there yet.
        • Connie C on June 9, 2015 at 10:22 AMAs a lesbian, am is allowed to be a spokesperson for the room?Trying to insult someone by implying that their sexuality is not ‘right’ and then apologizing for that ‘insult’ means that my sexuality is so vile that using it to tar an opponent with is quite literally taking things too far. It’s such a nasty thing to call someone that you are embarrassed for having done so?Yes, I’m insulted by that. Comparison someone to me is the worst insult someone can think of? I’m insulted by the mindset that can make up CHORF and throw around SJW, but still feels comparing someone to me is so much worse of an insult that the person who was compared to me needs an apology, not for the misidentification, but because it was such a nasty insult.
          If I can’t speak for the room, I’ll speak for the part of it I’m standing in and say if I had valued his opinion I’d be hurt. As it is I’m insulted. P
          • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 12:13 PMAdmin for http://www.bradrtorgersen.com: what Connie C said. I can’t improve on it.
          • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 3:40 PMWhenever someone insists that someone else “implied” an insult, it follows that they themselves “inferred” it. Because it is incredibly easy to infer insult from virtually anything, I am pre-disposed to dismiss such claims absent links to the offending material so I can see for myself what the ruckus is about.This is my mentality regarding James May, and it is my mentality regarding you. This is simply a matter of being considerate to all parties: I do not doubt that you are offended, but it is not incumbent upon anyone to blindly assume anyone is actually at fault for that.I find it more interesting that this entire thread of discussion is about attacking one apology as though this would in any way invalidate either his or Mr. Flint’s view of someone else’s apology. There is, indeed, no other particular reason to bring it up here except by way of trying to nullify that criticism, instead of addressing the criticism itself.
            • Connie C on June 9, 2015 at 5:01 PMWell you seem to be offended by someone saying respectively, which I read as SP are extreme right-wing and RP are Neo-Nazis, and saying that no, obviously she meant to tar every single puppy as Neo-Nazis, not just the ring leader of the RPs. Her apology has been judged not good enough, not sincere enough, not groveling enough.
              As to links, I will invoke Mr. Flint’s magic word, Google. The ‘hurh, hurh,’ sexuality insult is out there and so is the apology to Mr. Scalzi for hitting below the belt. Comparing someone to people like me is hitting below the belt you see.
              But while you feel I have inferred the insult, in the apology, those attacking Ms Gallo seem to have inferred that she called every single puppy a neo-natzi, no matter what respectively usually means.
              So is the game that the side you identify with may only by their exact words’ dictionary meanings while impugning to the other side the most hurtful construction you can imagine?
              I know we all have observational biases, but that seems extreme.
              While someone can use pussy as an insult, and then claim they only called you a cat, as a woman I an going to think of them as a misogynistic asshole who insults women by reducing them to their genitalia.
              That being said you are welcome to think the same thing of me as I am currently thinking of your arguments, “Doesn’t get it and doesn’t want to.”
              • Calbeck on June 10, 2015 at 6:59 AM“Well you seem to be offended by someone saying respectively, which I read as SP are extreme right-wing and RP are Neo-Nazis”Beyond the fact that Mr. Flint has already debunked both terms, there remains the reality that BOTH groups were tarred as “racist, sexist and homophobic” without any such “respective” differentiation… and Mr. Flint likewise chopped those claims to kibble.Ms. Gallo’s statement was broad-brushing, meant as such, meant to denigrate people via a pack of lies, and her apology addressed only “some individuals” who might in her estimation have been hurt by this in any way.Meanwhile, on this very forum we have one person after another leaping to Ms. Gallo’s defense for her original insults, claiming they were either partially or completely accurate.“Doesn’t get it and doesn’t want to” appears to be projection on your part.
      • Paul Birnbaum on June 9, 2015 at 4:27 PMMark:Ms. Gallo apologized “to anyone hurt by [her] comments” NOT “to the guy … who was the least offended.”It seems clear, or at least reasonable, to interpret “anyone hurt” as being “the affected parties.”
        • Calbeck on June 10, 2015 at 7:00 AMIn point of fact, she stated her belief that only “some individuals” were hurt at all.
    • John Cowan on June 9, 2015 at 1:33 PMMr. Torgersen: I would call your attention to Aral Vorkosigan’s distinction between reputation and honor, and to Cordelia telling Miles that you apologize for the sake of your honor or not at all, both in A Civil Campaign. If an apology damages you in the eyes of those who have no honor themselves, so be it.
    • Paul Birnbaum on June 9, 2015 at 4:18 PMMr. Torgersen,Let me start by saying that I am of the camp who disagrees with your characterization of the state of the Hugo Awards as it relates to the SF/F market. I find abhorrent the tactics you and your associates have chosen to address your dissatisfaction, and some of the people with whom you’ve chosen to associate in order to effect your goals. I also think your movement has been co-opted by a much worse faction within your ranks.But that’s just for some background and an insight into my perspective. It’s not the point I wish to make here.Here, I would like to say that of all the posts I’ve read by you relating to the aftermath of the SP3/RP campaign, this one is one of the most reasoned, intelligent, and thoughtful.I agree with you whole-heartedly that today’s “news cycle style” of discussion, debate, and more importantly, resolving disagreement, treats an apology as a sign of weakness rather than what it ought to be: a genuine show of regret following an error in judgement.I agree with you that the world, and on a more micro level, our little community within it, could use a lot more reasonable discussion and a lot less “joy buzzers.”
20. Tracy on June 8, 2015 at 10:24 PMA point of clarification: Ancillary Justice, The Goblin Emperor, and The Three-Body Problem weren’t on any slates, Rabid or Sad.
    • Tracy on June 8, 2015 at 10:26 PMBeg pardon: Ancillary Sword, not Justice.
21. J. C. Salomon on June 8, 2015 at 10:45 PMThank you, Eric, for this post and for the manner in which you’ve done your disagreeing with the Sad Puppies campaign.For reference, here is what Ms Gallo posted in the way of apology, at ‹facebook.com/igallo/posts/10152728739637461?comment_id=10152796098467461›:About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.Dave Freer and others have spoken about whether they consider this sufficient; but here at least is the text so everyone commenting can make up their own minds.
    • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 3:49 PMReading over it in context, my concern here is not so much the “I’m sorry if you felt hurt”, but “I’m sorry my brush was too broad”.The brush was “extreme right-wingers and neo-nazis”. As Mr. Flint has pointed out, NO persons of the latter description are involved in the SP/RP matter, and the former might apply to only one or two. The brush itself could not possibly have been narrowed to a point where it was appropriate to use at all.In this respect, it’s also telling that Ms. Gallo only thinks she harmed “some individuals” — as opposed to “the overwhelming membership of the groups whom she is speaking of”. This tells me, not through inference but through direct statement, that she still considers a group I personally am a member of to be full of “extremist right-wingers and neo-nazis”. If it is, I would like to know where the hell they have been hiding so successfully, with nary a peep, these last nine months.By at least one ANTI-GamerGate estimate, there are currently some 200,000 members… of which only “some individuals” AREN’T this horrible caricature of human beings presented by Ms. Gallo? I don’t think she has the slightest inkling of the sheer scale of offense she’s perpetrated.
22. viktor on June 8, 2015 at 10:58 PMKratman: was that necessary?
23. Mike on June 8, 2015 at 11:04 PMEric, I continue to be impressed with your opinions on this issue. Mostly I share them, but even when I don’t, you express them well.
24. Stewart on June 8, 2015 at 11:04 PMEric —
    I have not read Ms. Gallo’s comments, other than what has been repeated here. I have read several of your books and have enjoyed then and what I suspect is an insight into your personal character through your characters.
    Like one of the other poster’s here, I suspect any political discussions would be lively (WEB DuHavel rolls up his sleeves).
    I have held several jobs in the past where personal views, when openly published or spoken, need to be clearly expressed as personal. When that was not done and a work connection was either expressed or implied, there were sometimes work related consequences (implication of being a corporate spokesperson, etc).
    I did read Mr. Doherty published comment. How he handles his employee is his business. In other fields it might lead to a “corporate re-assignment” or “retirement to pursue other interests” for the offending individual.Back to the Hugo’s / Nebulas / any other (insert here) awards.
    I care not what stickers / awards / accolades any book receives.
    When I pick up a book at Barnes & Nobles or read a e-Book version, if it catches my interest, I buy it and read it. That generally endorses my picking up other books by the same author.Just a few thoughts from a reader
    — Stewart
25. Peter Grant on June 8, 2015 at 11:04 PMMr. Flint, thank you for your article and comments. I wish there was more such objectivity in this whole controversy. It might have been more easily resolved.I’ve just written an open letter to Tom Doherty in response to his letter on Tor.com today. You’ll find it on my blog. I’ll be interested to hear your reactions to it, and whether you think it’s fair or not. I do value your perspective.Thanks again.
    • Tracy on June 8, 2015 at 11:42 PMUm . . . John Scalzi is a spokesperson for Tor? I can’t take something that makes such a ridiculous claim seriously, and I’d be surprised if Doherty felt any different. Such a bizarre claim makes it look like you don’t know what you’re talking about elsewhere (and to be frank, your open letter contains a wealth of references to your personal life, but basically nothing about the behavior you think should be condemned in the Nielsen Haydens, Feder, and Scalzi).
      • Tracy on June 8, 2015 at 11:43 PM(I realize I’m not Eric, but this letter was so strange to me, and you did post it in public, so I don’t think I’m out of line commenting on its weaknesses here.)
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 9, 2015 at 10:13 PMDelightful how, out of all the statements made in that letter, *that* was the one you narrowed in on and chose to point out as a “weakness”. Not the fighting against apartheid in South Africa, not the friends who died fighting that fight, not even the (literal) violent opposition to *real* Neo Nazis. No. John Scalzi is what you thought important, or at least a big enough issue to “weaken” the rest of the substance of Mr. Grant’s letter. That tells me something about you. I’d tell you more, but I suspect you’d just home in on one irrelevant point in my statement and the rest would make a sonic boom as it flew over your head. My goodness…talk about “missing the point” or not seeing the forest for the trees…
26. David Gerrold on June 8, 2015 at 11:25 PMWill someone please point me to a link where I actually said what was claimed in an earlier comment here? That I look forward to handing Connie Willis an award?You can’t. I never said it.(I have joked about the inevitability of Mike Resnick and Connie Willis winning awards, but that’s not the same statement.)In any case, I wouldn’t have said it because Connie Willis is not nominated this year.And … as the Hugo host, I have to remain publicly neutral on who I want to see win.What I have said, and will say again, is simply, “Read the works, vote your conscience.”I don’t mind people disagreeing with me. I do mind when they lie about me.
    • Reality Observer on June 8, 2015 at 11:44 PMDidn’t realize that “neutral” includes hoping for a “smackdown.” (May 10, in case you have already conveniently forgotten…)Boy, I’m glad you’re not actually against the Sad Puppies – the blood would be hip deep (although it would not be theirs, IMHO).
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 9, 2015 at 10:15 PMNeutral indeed…I think I choked a little when I read that…
        😉
    • James May on June 9, 2015 at 3:05 AMFrom a David Gerrold Facebook post: “The continuing denigration of women and minorities as ‘the Social Justice Warrior Glittery Hoo Ha crowd’ leaves me wondering … are you folks in favor of social injustice?“If you’re against ‘the Social Justice Warrior Glittery Hoo Ha crowd’ then we to wonder if you’re in favor of the denial of civil rights to women, blacks, LGBT, immigrants, and other minorities?“Because if that’s what you stand for — a return to the days of sexism, racism, misogyny, and discrimination…”From another DG Facebook post: “I will point out, however, that the awards are being handed out by a gay man and a black woman — and both of us intend to make sure there are lots of cooties on the trophies, no matter who wins.”*Without quotes to show otherwise, only you care about the fact you’re gay and Tananarive Due is black, but the implication is clear we do. The implication we default to anti-social justice unless we declare our bona fides is clear as well. As far as I can tell those bona fides consist of race and gender being my moral compass, with me always pointing in the wrong direction.And there has been no denigration of women and minorities aside from us pushing back against idiocy about “embraces white male power fantasies” (N. K. Jemisin at Tor.com), “other experiences than the white male’s” (Damien Walter, The Guardian), “white male roster” (Vida), “unconscious bias on the part of men whites” (Laura Mixon), “white male power & centrality” (Liz Bourke, Tor.com), “only one award went to a white male” (M.R. Kowal), “white men run the world, right?” (Andrea Harris), “The white male gaze counts on silence,” (Monica Byrne), “Life is so hard for white dudes” (Veronica Schanoes), “The ‘Mental Illness’ We Refuse to Name: White Male Entitlement” (from a retweet by SFWA president Steven Gould), “sexist, racist white male machine of power” (Shanley Kane), “White male nerds need to realize…” (Laurie Penny), “straight white males are not usually very self-aware” (Requires Hate), “my book review column features no white male authors” (Sunil Patel, Lightspeed Magazine), “whiny white male authors” (Ellen Oh), “Science Fiction’s White Male Problem” (The New Republic), “Hard as it to believe, somewhere right now, a white, straight male is explaining to a woman or POC (person of color) what they =really= meant” (Steven Gould), “I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them” (then SFWA president John Scalzi), “mostly white, mostly men – with cockroaches for hearts” (Saladin Ahmed), “White male privilege doesn’t need to describe the world that caters to it” (Kate Elliott), “Policing white male centrality, (K. Tempest Bradford), “White male privilege cares ONLY about white male privilege, and there is no goal except maintaining that position of power” (N.Y. Times best-selling Marvel Comics writer Marjorie Liu), etc.People like Anita Sarkeesian understand what “gendered hate speech” is and John Scalzi can see “obvious misogyny” when L. Correia utters the word “pussy” but otherwise fair play and equal protection disappear in a cloud of smoke and stupid excuses, and a flood of defamatory quotes become a question of context or something else or I was just filing my fingernails…For those of you who need to, just replace “white” with “black” and then find me comparable quotes, or just say the words “equal protection.” When there are literally thousands of quotes like that from the highest to the lowest in SFF and 100% of them negative portrayals that is simply hate speech no matter how much you spin it using privilege theory and “punching up” excuse notes from teacher. It is rancid. I don’t need to listen to that and I don’t need to be called a “racist” or “neo-Nazi” for telling such people to take a hike. This is not a question of me feeling a victim or oppressed but of others scapegoating me to define their own victimization and phony oppression.At what point does saying “straight white males have an undue amount of power and influence in our society” cross over into group defamation? Does it ever? Is there any limit whatsoever from a cult which claims mistaken racial identity is “institutional racism”? (Nebula winner Alaya Dawn Johnson) The standard is so wide I could dump an ocean into it and I don’t recall ever ceding one inch of my full right to humanity to anyone on some imaginary sliding scale of oppression I have never visited on anyone. My rights are inalienable, not a negotiation by radical feminism.
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 9, 2015 at 10:43 PMI suspect it’s a mistake to write this, but…I never was accused of having a particularly robust sense of self-preservation. *chuckles* Anyway: Even if I can understand (and, in my ignorance, disagree with) the idea of “privilege” or “patriarchy” as spoken about by many, many voices in the media, and the academic sphere, and as much (an unfathomably enormous amount) respect as I unquestionably have for Mr. Flint, and though it may show I am “thin skinned” and too eager to take offense at other persons’ statements… I have to say that this was well put. (Yes. That was a *lot* of qualifications…ahem…) I’m the sort that tries to replace the words anyone uses in a generalizing statement about some group with (for example) the word “Jew(s)” in an effort to shine an objective, but emotional, light on such statements. I have already said I reject the idea of “privilege” or “patriarchy” as being so much bunkum; as such I’ve found that if a statement sounds disgusting when the group name in it (whites, blacks, men, women, conservatives, liberals, Muslims, Christians, etc) is replaced with “Jew(s)” it’s usually a fair bet that Tue statement in its original form is just as disgusting…the sole difference being that the level of soul-deep revulsion the original statement invokes is less (whatever the reason) than the modified statement does. Hate is hate, regardless of race, gender, sex, faith, nationality, or any other metric. Such speech should be absolutely protected by laws of free speech (such as the 1st amendment) but that does not mean that it should not be recognized as wrong when it is encountered. Radicals of any sort are generally distasteful to associate with…feminist or otherwise. I say that as a radical myself, I feel I should note. I’m under no illusions that my company is always pleasant or felicitous, though I do try to be pleasant to he around.
        😉
    • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 12:58 PMhttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fdavid.gerrold%2Fposts%2F10205363965790973&ei=DH12VbipKsPB7AauqIPwCQ&usg=AFQjCNGGG3VfGUithA3rjXN340mCRqjIug&sig2=eHlkp0yjc0LiYKTgtg7a0gA most undignified, embarrassing response from an allegedly mature man, that proved every one of Larry’s points.“These people played within the letter of the rules, but they’re hatey-haters who hate, so we should be able to exclude them, and I don’t want to play, and you’re a bunch of poopy pants. So there!”And you note that several people have over a dozen noms or wins.Now, are those people good authors? Yes. Were they the best authors that many years running? Probably not.So yes, the system is insular, incestuous and in need of new life.And real convention attendees, like my daughter, were completely unaware of the Hugo. http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/no-matter-what-happens-the-hugos-are-doomedSince at no point have I ever attacked Mr Gerrold’s orientation, professional ability as a teacher, awards or physique, I owe no one an apology.I did briefly take him to task over some ignorant and idiotic statements about firearms and the law, a field in which I am an expert with decades of experience, and he clearly is not.
27. Reality Observer on June 9, 2015 at 12:18 AMMr. Flint, I read a previous post of yours – and am now glad that I kept my (admittedly volcanic) temper in check, and did not comment at that time.You have certainly salvaged my perception of you as an honorable opponent. We definitely do not agree on (many) social issues, or on (just about all) economic issues, but you are able to avoid, for the most part, the hatred (unveiled and veiled) of the majority of the public figures on “your” side. Note, I deliberately say public figures. The majority of the non-public figures with your views are people I do not trade mortar rounds with.Now, the Sad Puppies supporters could certainly do without Vox Day. I think that just about all of us, at various times, have made our opinion of him very clear. As a “wannabe” writer, I certainly never expect to be published by Castalia House, nor would this lack (probably) impact any career I might hope to have. However, the situation with multiple people at TOR is different; I can certainly expect to be rejected by the likes of Patrick Nielsen-Hayden or Irene Gallo, because it is quite evident that they perceive anything written by a Sad Puppy is “bad-to-reprehensible work,” despite the veneer of their public prevarications.And – if anyone at Baen were to be so unprofessional as to call you a murdering, thieving, neo-Stalinist – especially when they were promoting a book by, say, Tom Kratman – there would be no forgiveness from me, nor any continuing trust in the Baen brand name if they retained their job. (Somehow, I think that they would be fortunate to retain their life when Toni Weisskopf managed to corner them.)
    • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:01 PMSpeaking for myself, I was unaware that Vox was running a campaign, nor that he had nominated one of my works.1: he needs no permission to do so, nor could I stop him in any practical sense.2: I have commented repeatedly on his lack of understanding of basic science, and other matters, publicly and to him. Yet, he is able to see past our disagreements and political differences and endorse my work for itself.3: that makes him more honorable than several denizens at Tor.4: that is a sad truth, and should be a wake up call. If you are measured morally against your enemy and found wanting…
      • Reality Observer on June 11, 2015 at 1:17 AMActually, I was out of the loop for SP1 and SP2. SP3 I got interested in, and then there was an offhand mention of “Vox Day” and the “Rabid Puppies” after the ballot (first version) was announced.Following that up, I was MIGHTILY confused. “Vox” to me is a far left wing web site. “Rabid Puppies” sounded like a rip-off by the LEFT to attack the Sad Puppies.I really don’t think I was alone in this, being one of those “untrue fans” who really didn’t follow the ins and outs of “fandom.”
28. Exarch on June 9, 2015 at 1:10 AMWhat form of ending can there possibly be at this point? There may, or may not, be some adjustment to Hugo award voting rules in the near future, and it doesn’t seem likely there will be any impact on the actual business of writing, and publication, but with regards to the online conversation the bridges seem to have been rather thoroughly burnt; especially with Kate Paulk having already said that there will be some incarnation of Sad Puppies 4 next year isn’t the current state of affairs just the new normal?
29. John C Wright on June 9, 2015 at 1:13 AMIrene Gallo’s apology was sufficient to ameliorate my offended honor, which is not based on parsing words and looking for an excuse not to accept an apology. I am required to accept an apology when offered, or I cannot call myself a man. I am not required to read between the lines to discover alleged secret mental reservations.The insult was pro-forma, words she did not mean and which made no sense, hence a pro-forma apology is logically sufficient. This is a matter of honor, not emotion. Honor is satisfied.I salute Mr Flint for holding his allies to a higher standard. Well done, sir.I am please that Mr Flint has the clearsightedness to call my writing fustian. I am doubly pleased because he ironically chose a fustian word like fustian to describe it.
    If he were a Christian, and filled with the laughter only madmen and giants know, I could perhaps explain to him the joys of fustian pomp, and why pomposity is self-forgetful rather than self-aggrandizing, and why it is a brave and splendid thing to walk adorned in gold and in the purple of Tyre for happy solemnities.But he has his idols, and I do not bow to them, and I have God, to whom Mr Flint does not bow, so I doubt I can wing any words across that abyss, no matter how high flown the prose. I am pleased he did not simply sneer, denigrate and mock a story of mine, but judged it, and found it wanting.He is judging the story, which may be good or bad, and not the author, whom I have it on good authority is not a good man. Well done again. Basic fairness should not be rare.
    • rho on June 9, 2015 at 2:57 AMBut I saw nothing “bad-to-reprehensible” about it other than Wright’s penchant for fustian prose.I had to look up “fustian.”Then I had to look up “irony” to see if it applied in this case.Turns out “pecksniffery” probably works better.
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 1:47 AMMade me laugh. Also is making me look up “pecksniffery” darn you. *shakes fist* lol.
        😉
    • Terry on June 9, 2015 at 3:33 AMThis is one of the most Christian actions I’ve seen taken by any member of either side of this fracas. Good on you for walking the walk, Mr. Wright.
    • Rick Boatright on June 9, 2015 at 11:18 AMWell said Mr Wright!
    • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:02 PMI still haven’t seen an apology to accept.“I’m sorry you got upset that I called you a bunch of nazis, but I’m leaving the post on my wall” is not an apology.
    • Yoyo on June 9, 2015 at 7:57 PMI’m very surprised and pleased that you made this response.
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 12:43 AMI am entirely unsurprised that you were surprised. Truly, utterly unsurprised that your belief in the inherently nasty, evil, wicked, bigoted, etc natures of your opponents was so certain and unshakeably sincere (ie: it wasn’t rhetoric…you actually thought/think those that disagree with you on this issue *are* the demonic, straw-person caricatures your previous comments on Mr. Flint’s blog have been aimed at) that you were actually *shocked* to see one of those (evil, etc) opponents express himself in an utterly human, inarguably decent, and -arguably- noble fashion. When you are shocked, or surprised, to see someone you disagree with on an issue behaving in a decent, less-than-monstrous fashion, it’s should serve as a wakeup call that you’re “doing it wrong” as the meme goes. It should awaken you to the fact that your opponents are *just* as human as *you* are, and that treating them -even in internal thought exercises- as if they are less than human, decent people is both foolish, and an efficient way of setting yourself up to fail. Pardon the arguably caustic nature of this response, but I tire of your (and your fellows’) thoughtless, Puppy-Kicking snark and incessant demonization of me, my friends, and multiple authors whose work, whether fiction or non, published or non, has caused me to feel a superlative amount of admiration and (though it may mark me as an odd ‘un [an odd one]) affection for them.Good day. 😉
    • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 1:45 AMLovely response, Mr. Wright. My already high opinion of you is raised by reading this and the post on your blog. I must shamefacedly confess that, though I suspected its meaning, I had to look up the meaning of the term “Fustian” upon reading Mr. Flint’s blog post. I may have chuckled a bit. *chuckles* I share your delight with such prose, by the by, though I am unquestionably less qualified and deft in my efforts to utilize that manner of written expression. It is eminently pleasurable and, yes, Joyous, to stretch and exercise one’s capacity for inaudible eloquence by utilizing as much of one’s linguistic repertoire as possible when employing the written word as a means of communicating one’s ideas, opinions, thoughts, imagination, and so on. I am very tired now, and in pain (wisdom teeth extraction…hurts. Quite a bit) so I regret to say my vocabulary is failing me. As such, I will draw this to a close. I hope and pray that this reaches you well, and I thank you for presenting this stumble-prone race-runner with yet another example of what a race well-run looks like. May the Lord bless you, sir, and your house. 😉
30. Hampus Eckerman on June 9, 2015 at 1:22 AMIn one of his blogposts, Beale wrote this about the childmurderer and terrorist Anders Breivik:“As I said not long after the shootings, I will not be in the least bit surprised if Anders Breivik is one day regarded as a national hero in Norway, much like George Washington and William Tell, two men who also offered murderous resistance to their own governments.”I knew some of the people Breivik tried to kill. One was my childhood friend. He hid in the water and survived only because Breivik killed a girl nearer instead. My colleagues daughter only survived because she was sick that day.When these things were discusses on File770, one of the puppy supporters came to defend Beales statements by defending the murders. You understand why I see neo-nazis as part of the puppies?This is the same Beale that wrote abot N.K. Nemisin:“Unlike the white males she excoriates, there is no evidence to be found anywhere on the planet that a society of NK Jemisins is capable of building an advanced civilization, or even successfully maintaining one without significant external support from those white males. If one considers that it took my English and German ancestors more than one thousand years to become fully civilized after their first contact with advanced Greco-Roman civilization, it should be patently obvious that it is illogical to imagine, let alone insist, that Africans have somehow managed to do the same in less than half the time at a greater geographic distance. These things take time.”Why am I not allowed to view Beale as a neo-nazi when his writing makes it clear where his sympathies lie? Why is this view dismissed without any thought?
    • Michael Z. Williamson on June 9, 2015 at 1:35 AMDid he say HE felt that way, or only that he thought OTHERS MIGHT feel that way?Content matters.If you are going to quote his response to Jemisin, you should quote her statements to him, first, for context. Please do so.I don’t know the context of his second part, but it is true there are pseudo historical revisionists who claim Africans settled the Americas and had some imaginary sea-faring civilization long before Europeans, despite the complete lack of linguistic or DNA evidence of such, based on the quaint observation that to build tall structures, it’s easier to make them narrower at the top.It’s possible Jemisin is one such. Given her rhetoric on other subjects, entirely possible.But, has Beale called for either a national socialist infrastructure, a eugenics program by government mandate, or joined any such party?“Raving, narcissistic asshole” is not the same thing as “Nazi.”
      • James May on June 9, 2015 at 12:40 PM“The future he (Beale) apparently wants is one rooted in the past, during which a demographic minority of the human species constructed an ingenious system allowing it to dominate most of the planet. (Diabolical… but ingenious.)” – N. K. Jemisinhttp://nkjemisin.com/2013/08/time-to-pick-a-side/
    • Joe Katzman on June 9, 2015 at 2:51 AMHampus, I understand why you’d be pissed. And you ask a fair question.I guess the question is whether the statement is voiced as a prediction or a hope. As to why that matters… I would not be in the least bit surprised if the vile moron who shot those people in the Paris Jewish bakery is is one day regarded as a national hero in France, with a mythology much like George Washington and William Tell.I’m Jewish, incidentally. But I can understand demographics and geo-political trends, and see which way the wind could easily blow. So saying that is in no way an expression of support. The world is what it is, and there are tensions and problems that could absolutely lead to this outcome.I can do the same thing in a more cautionary vein, and say that if they persist in their current course, Iran is likely to find that many of its cities will become glowing ruins. I have Persian friends, and would much prefer a different future… but the Saudis and others want nukes, and an unstable theocratic leadership that glorifies homicide/martyrdom could easily do something that couldn’t be walked back. Play with enough unstable elements, and one of them will probably go off at some point. It’s no different than saying that I’m sorry, but your football team is probably going to lose next week: too many inconsistent players.Or, I could make that last prediction in a way that suggested I wanted it to happen. And you’d have to figure out from my words what was really in my head. Which may or may not be right.Ms. Gallo was really clear, and spoke in the present. People speaking about the future are much, much harder to pin down. Others will make judgements anyway, which is a good reason to be visibly sober and careful about predictions.
      • Hampus Eckerman on June 9, 2015 at 3:23 AMI do believe that anyone that now talks about boycotting Tor, because of a comment from an Art Director, also should boycott Castalia House because of the comments from their owner.“Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.”http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/graphics/wndvoxcolumn051506.pdfNeo-nazi, absolutely.
        • James May on June 9, 2015 at 12:33 PMAnd what happened to Jean Rabe, Mike Resnick, Barry Malzberg and Jonathan Ross who were all hounded out of paying gigs on the thinnest of feminist violations. Were they all neo-Nazis too?
        • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 4:09 PMI have to note at this point that you are farming for outrage by ignoring the content of your own quote.Or are you seriously arguing that “the Final Solution” is the same thing as deportation of persons illegally in the United States? Are you arguing that Vox’s citation here exists to validate the Holocaust?That said, should YOU take your own advice seriously and start boycotting any media outlet whose employees and/or owners have ACTUALLY made statements endorsing a new Holocaust against their opponents? How about only in those cases where, when given a chance to walk back such statements, they dug in instead? Exactly such phrases have been used against GamerGate, by persons alleging themselves to be journalists.But I warn you, don’t go on Twitter and denounce such statements, not one of them — or you will be declared by GamerGate’s opposition to BE part of GamerGate. That’s been our biggest source of recruits in the last six months.
          • Hampus Eckerman on June 9, 2015 at 4:39 PMI have no idea why the heck you are starting to talk about gamergate. My beef is with the guy who wants to heorise the terrorist who tried to murder my friend.
            • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 6:00 PMMr. Flint’s post, and this discussion, isn’t about a psychotic Norwegian shooter. It’s about Ms. Gallo’s original statement and the way that’s been handled since.YOU decided to inject an unrelated shooting, expressly to assert that one single person, in one faction of the Puppies movement, is in fact a neo-Nazi, and you did it to defend Ms. Gallo’s original statement. Now you’re relying on your friend’s personal endangerment as a shield against counter-arguments.Why am I talking about GamerGate? Because Ms. GALLO talked about GamerGate in the same breath as everyone else she was slandering.In my case, I am both a Sad Puppy and a member of the GamerGate movement, so I have been insulted twice over, particularly in that Ms. Gallo now says she is only apologizing to “some individuals” and not the thousands she has smeared just on the Puppy side of affairs.Elsewhere in this discussion, and in forums frequented by the most strident opponents of the Puppies, there are people even now who are busy at work DEFENDING the use of “neo-nazi” as being perfectly acceptable in some way, including YOU.When people here talk about toxic voices quashing all attempts at resolving anything, you’re one of those they’re referring to, regardless of how justifiably outraged you may believe you are.
              • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 1:50 AMExcellently put. Truly.
              • Hampus Eckerman on June 10, 2015 at 3:13 AMAgain, my point is that it is acceptable to call a man who heroises a neo-nazi childmurderer a neo-nazi himself. It is not unreleated as I am talking about Beale, the leader of the rabid puppy-slate.Your sealioning about gamergate is totally uninteresting for me.
        • Joe Katzman on June 9, 2015 at 7:17 PMI don’t think you quite understood what I was communicating re: predictions. How is this new quote different from saying:“We won World War 2 in under 5 years. It couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.”You see the word “Holocaust” and cease to think rationally about what the statement actually says. Which is that an industrialized society like the USA could do X if it really wanted to, within 8 years. And that’s probably correct. Though it isn’t the way I’d bet.(Aside… Vox’s quote does kind of remind me that if the USA with all of its current capabilities did become unhinged and began practicing violence against its population… things could get really bad, very fast. A sobering reminder. Mayyybe Facebook isn’t the great idea everyone thinks.)
          • Reality Observer on June 11, 2015 at 1:31 AMQuestion for the Marys, and the Marks, and the Hampuses – what do you think of Bill Ayers?Note – this is a defining question. If you do not absolutely disavow him, you are a Marxist who is “heroising” a person that thinks 25 million Americans should be killed in gulags.
      • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 5:49 AMI guess the question is whether the statement is voiced as a prediction or a hope.No. No, it isn’t. VD plays this line-dancing, I-didn’t-really-say-it-I-was-just-speculating card far far too frequently. His opinions are clear from the totality of his writing. He is a Neo-Nazi and you are, right now, acting as an apologist for a Neo-Nazi. Perhaps you’d like to stop doing that?
        • Kevin Marks on June 9, 2015 at 9:13 AMAnd perhaps you’d like to stop conflating the word “neo-Nazi” with “someone I disagree with”? Vox Day is an unabashed free market capitalist, as his writings make clear. A Nazi is a nationalist socialist (as opposed to the communists, who are international socialists). So at the very least, you’re guilty of using loaded, obviously false language. At the worst, you are no better than Irene Gallo, who might be called a “lying smear-specialist.”
        • Carol Gibson on June 9, 2015 at 11:01 AMI am so tired of the argument that Vox Day is not really supporting the things he says just speculating.Bull he deliberately caters to the ultra right crazies which includes white supremacist and Neo Nazi as well as MRA and the red pill crazies.At this point it really does not matter if he believes these things or not he is instigating and promoting hate.
          • James May on June 9, 2015 at 12:28 PMThe problem is there is a far larger movement in SFF which caters to ultra left crazies which include non-white supremacists as well as WRAs. It outnumbers Beale by an easy hundred or two. We lack only a definition on what race and sex-hatred is instead seeing misogyny everywhere accompanied by #ImaginaryMisandry. Women are human and their ability to hate or love is not imaginary. Honor a definition all can live by and this all goes away tomorrow. You’ll get a definition of hate speech from this bunch together with community-wide Codes of Conduct regarding them on the day hell freezes over. There is only one kind of sexual and racial harassment in SFF, and we all know what it is.
          • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 4:12 PMSo enforcing the border laws of the United States is fascism, as has been alleged so far in this discussion?Sorry, but hyperbole like this only reinforces Mr. Flint’s point, while also pointing out that Ms. Gallo is far from alone in her histrionics.
          • Yoyo on June 9, 2015 at 8:03 PMAbsolutely right. He plays the “this is just rhetoric” trick all the time but he is the purest example of dog whistling since vdare.
    • TRX on June 9, 2015 at 9:10 AM> Why am I not allowed to view Beale as a neo-nazi“You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means.”The James Murphy translation was the official English version, at least until he fell out with the NSDAP. It reads like a cross between The Federal Register and an early screenplay for “They Live!”, but it does lay out the NSDAP’s official party platform and goals once you bore through endless whingeing about the internal politics of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which wasn’t even relevant to Germany, but apparently was one of Hitler’s favorite subjects…At least Hess slipped a few jokes into Mein Kampf. I’m pretty sure I suffered minor brain damage grinding through Marx’ “Das Kapital.” On the 1-10 Scale of German Pedantry, Marx scores about 27.“Words have meaning.”
    • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 1:05 AMI was going to post a sardonic reply, but Mr. Williamson (aka “Mad Mike”) wrote an excellent response that seems perfectly succinct, as well as far more polite and courteous than mine would have been. He didn’t even question your level of sobriety, or inebriation, for goodness sake. Much kinder than I am, unquestionably. I should work on that…PS: there is one thing I feel comfortable adding. I would add- no one said you weren’t “allowed” to “view” Mr. Beale “as a Neo-Nazi” Mr. Eckerman. What was said (here and elsewhere) was that such a view was both inaccurate, and insulting to the victims of *actual* Nazis and Neo-Nazis. I would add “very, very silly” if I wasn’t…oh screw it, consider it added.
      Ciao! 😉
31. Gary D on June 9, 2015 at 1:35 AMAnother excellent and honorable post Eric Flint.Irene Gallo: “About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.”That is not quite an “I am sorry if you were offended by what I said” non-apology but I don’t think the Sad Puppies will be satisfied,
    • Joe Katzman on June 9, 2015 at 3:00 AMSo, let’s examine the “apology.”“About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com.”Lie. It is her personal page, but she’s a fairly senior manager promoting a book by Tor as the core thread. Worse, deeper in the thread she notes that refusing to apologize will attract more attention to the thread and serve as promo for the book.“I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.”“I painted too broad a brush” is not an apology; it’s “I was mostly right.” Likewise, “I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments” is not an apology.So she hasn’t owned up to a major dereliction of professional duty, hasn’t retracted her accusations, and ends by implying that it’s her listeners’ problem. I don’t see an apology. Recall Eric’s test:“…she needs to publicly retract the accusation and apologize to the people against whom she made it.”She has done neither.
      • snowcrash on June 9, 2015 at 3:47 AMI disagree, and take it from someone who’s actually seen and received a non-apology?About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.In her post, Ms Gallo: 1. Took responsibility for her actions, 2. Acknowledged her mistake, 3. Apologized for those she hurt. (also 1.5 – indemnified her employer, which any halfway decent HR would have insisted on!)There’s no weaselly terms like “oh *if* I offended anyone” or “some mistakes were made”. This isn’t it. She’s owned up, and admitted that people were hurt by her actions, and apologised to them.You’re doing what Brad Torgersen calls hiding a joy buzzer, and just using this to attack Ms Gallo.
        • Richard Hartman on June 9, 2015 at 4:44 PMHer apology (“I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments”) amounts to “I didn’t know that neo-Nazis had feelings that could be hurt”. Not “I should not have said this.”If you remember, Eric’s formula was to “Retract the statement publicly and issue a simple and straightforward apology.” She did NOT retract anything. Hint: a retraction should contain the phrase “I should never have said these things” or something much like it.
        • Joe Katzman on June 9, 2015 at 7:10 PMMs. Gallo could have issued an apology that satisfied me. She did not, because it isn’t a real apology.Heck, she could have said, “I’m not going to retract my statement re: Vox Day, because I think he really is a racist. Even so, it was very unprofessional to draw my publisher into this, by leveling this charge while promoting Tor works. Worse, it was inexcusable of me to libel any other authors and fans in this manner – especially my Tor colleagues, to whom I owe a duty. ” (actual acknowledgement of mistake – vs. “too broad a brush,” which = “mistakes were made”).* “I am truly sorry, and will not do anything like this again. As an executive at Tor, I am aware that I have greater responsibilities, and this will be reflected in all of my future public posts. I hope that those whom I’ve wronged can forgive me, and that current and future authors can work together with me to showcase their work.” (actual apology, statement that she won’t do it again).That’s what an apology looks like. It isn’t what her statement looks like.
      • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 5:43 AMLie. It is her personal page, but she’s a fairly senior manager promoting a book by Tor as the core thread.Not in fact a lie. She’s making a factual statement that her employer undoubtedly required her to reiterate (See Tom Doherty’s statement) that when speaking on a social media site in her own name, she’s speaking in her own name.“I painted too broad a brush” is not an apology; it’s “I was mostly right.”Some of her specific statements can only be applied to some of the people painted with them, so she’s withdrawn the broad sweep. Why require her to apologise for calling Vox Day a racist when it’s the unvarnished truth?
        • Kevin Marks on June 9, 2015 at 9:26 AMBecause it’s a lie. Vox Day is not a “racist”. Unless recognizing and commenting upon differences among races based upon different metrics is “racist.” For instance, what percentage of the NFL and NBA are black, and what percentages are white, Asian, Jewish, and Hispanic? Then consider what percentage of the general population each of those sub-groups comprises.It is “racist” to make the observation and consider it? Then all kinds of sports coaches, scientists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, exercise physiologists, and people in lots of other disciplines are “racist.”Here is Vox Day’s state position on human racial differences:“I assert that an unborn female black child with a missing chromosome and an inclination to homosexuality is equal in human value and human dignity and unalienable, God-given rights to a straight white male in the prime of his life and a +4 SD IQ.”“Racist”, right?
          • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 12:21 PMKevin, earlier today on tor dot com, John C Wright denied being homophobic through the medium of a homophobic rant. I didn’t think I’d see the same tactic twice in one day, but here you are, denying racism by repeating racist remarks.
            • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 1:22 AMErm…is every word you read -no matter its usefulness- instantaneously made part of your internal GIGO loop? I mean…that’s the only explanation I can think of…
              😉
            • Kevin Marks on June 16, 2015 at 8:47 AMGee…I guess it IS “racist” to observe facts that exist, and then discuss them and what they might mean. Galileo and Copernicus did no less. Sorry! :–)
32. Joe Vasicek on June 9, 2015 at 1:39 AMI can’t say I agree with all your views on the Sad Puppies, sir, but I have to say that this was a classy response to a messy affair. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Ms. Gallo’s unprofessional behavior and the distasteful smear tactics she employed. And if she retracts her statements in full and issues a straightforward apology for making them (not merely apologizing that feelings were broken, as she has already done), I agree that her apology should be accepted.
33. Reality Observer on June 9, 2015 at 2:05 AMOne thing, Mr. Flint. I was not aware that the hate-filled vitriol from Mercedes Lackey was spewed out in your home space. (I just chalked it up as yet another frothing at the mouth reaction from an author I do not care for as a solo, and unlike the people at TOR, has no power to harm those who she hates so bitterly.)It would be difficult, and I will understand perfectly if you decline – but perhaps you can address that also in your future posts?
34. Jon Nials on June 9, 2015 at 2:34 AMO.M.G. An honorable leftist. And here I thought they were unicorns. :)Seriously, Mr. Flint. I appreciate your writing and your candor. Perhaps some other people (I refuse to name names) will pick up on your, shall we say hints on how they might improve their communications?
    • Mike on June 9, 2015 at 5:17 AMWhen looking for hints on how to improve communications, you might want to consider whether it’s helpful to start your discussion with someone by making a joke that implies everyone who doesn’t share your views is dishonorable.
      • Kevin Marks on June 9, 2015 at 9:29 AMHe put a smiley face in there to emphasize the joke.Humor-challenged much?
        • Trevor on June 9, 2015 at 10:25 AMThat’s a cop out, and you know. It’s the same as the Southern US saying, “Bless his heart”. You say that after you insult someone to try and make other like minded people say, “Oh, it’s not that bad, he didn’t really mean it.”The smiley face doesn’t make it a joke, it means that he meant to say it, but knew that it was a cowardly way of starting a discourse, so he put it there so that his defenders could then blame “the other side” if they took offense. It’s a common rhetorical trick that both sides use, and it’s just as useless and has no place in any civilized debate.
          • Achillea on June 9, 2015 at 11:33 AMnah, the smiley face means Jon is just ‘painting with too broad a brush,’ since that’s apparently the oh-well-that’s-all-right-then standard around here.
            • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 1:55 AMRoflmao.
35. Robbo on June 9, 2015 at 5:56 AMThe ethics alarms blog (ethicsalarms.com) has a useful apology scale, running 1 to 10, where a 1 is ” 1. An apology motivated by the realization that one’s past conduct was unjust, unfair, and wrong, constituting an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing as well as regret, remorse and contrition, as part of a sincere effort to make amends and seek forgiveness.” and a 9 is “9. Deceitful apologies, in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not (“if my words offended, I am sorry”). Another variation: apologizing for a tangential matter other than the act or words that warranted an apology.”Gallo’s apology is definitely not a 1. Is it a 9 ?
    • Mad Professah on June 9, 2015 at 11:13 AMi love this ethical alarm apology scale!Regarding the Gallo apology I agree that her words definitely
      are not a “1” but I don’t think they are a “9” either.
      I’d say it’s somewhere in the 4-5 range. The question
      for the SP/RP folks is will they only be satisfied with
      an apology that THEY (since they are the ones who were
      presumably offended by the original statements) evaluate as a “1”?Or does Gallo’s apology get to be evaluated on the ethic alarm
      Scale by the entire public?And I do think it is significant that the original statement
      was made a month ago and only publicized the same weekend the Nebula awards were announced. The reasons for this were publicized at file770.conI also think Gallo’s use of the word “respectively” distinguishing
      the SPs (extreme right wing) and the RPs (neo-nazi) is
      also significant. One can (and people have, in comments above) argue that
      those descriptions are not wholly inaccurate.However, I agree with Eric that Gallo’s statements after that are wrong and demonstrably inaccurate.
    • Rick Boatright on June 9, 2015 at 11:23 AMTHANK YOU for that pointer. I’ve bookmarked it, and will be using it.Gallo’s apology is a six.
      6. A forced or compelled version of 1-4, when the individual (or organization) apologizing knows that an apology is appropriate but would have avoided making one if he or she could have gotten away with it.
      • Mad Professah on June 9, 2015 at 3:49 PMHere’s the link to the Apology Scale:http://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/the-apology-scale/How do we know that Gallo’s apology was forced?
        • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 2:53 AMHrm…car pictures. Because she declined to apologize for her (to quote you) “…not wholly inaccurate… …demonstrably inaccurate…” hateful, defamatory, utterly unacceptable and disgusting allegations and descriptions when asked, politely, for an explanation, an apology, *some*thing…and instead elected to respond to those requests…with cat pictures, and the “word” “kitteh?” on her Facebook page. Her “apology” such as it was, came only briefly before Mr. Doherty posted his open letter to the folks she castigated, defamed, and tarred with the “Neo-Nazi to Extreme Right Wing!!!11!” (Exclamation points and “1’s” mine) “too broad” brush. In the aforementioned open letter, Mr. Doherty stated that she, and others at Tor, he seemed to imply, had been talked to and informed of the unacceptable nature of her/their actions, speech, and behavior. As Leeroy Jethro Gibbs (NCIS) says, “there are no coincidences.” She posted her (well hidden) “apology” for using “too broad a brush” a *very* short time before Mr. Doherty posted his open letter. It would be an impressive coincidence if the “talk” he mentioned were not responsible, at least in part, for Miss Gallo’s pseudo-apology. In my opinion, at least.
          😉
36. Mike on June 9, 2015 at 6:19 AMA minor quibble…The text quoted said (emphasis mine):“There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy.”That seems to me to indicate that the Sad Puppies are being labeled as “extreme right-wing” and the Rabid Puppies are being labeled as “neo-nazi”. Neither group is being labeled both (although one could of course see that there’s probably significant overlap at play there).
    • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 7:01 AMMike: Yes, this point has come up elsewhere. She was clearly making a distinction. This is where I feel our host does her a disservice in an otherwise fair and well-judged post: it’s not Gallo’s fault that it is extremely difficult to put a wedge in the gap between SP and RP, it’s the fault of those who tolerated VD for far too long until they realised he’d played them and had to scramble to put some daylight between him and them.
      • Jody on June 9, 2015 at 12:06 PMYes, that sort of word parsing is exactly how Vox Day excuses his vile crap. She didn’t mean it that way, she meant it to apply to both groups.
      • James May on June 9, 2015 at 6:52 PMMen in SFF as an entire group were being called misogynist white racists by this new cult before anyone ever thought of SP. SP came because of that stuff. You’re putting the cart before the horse. There was no reason to start writing posts about white privilege interpreting a male-heavy, white-heavy demographic as a white male supremacy. There was absolutely no rhetoric to go along with such a fantastic idea, and there still isn’t. There are always demographic spikes in any hobby.
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 3:10 AMGIGO again Mark…man, have you *ever* read and comprehended a statement someone has made *without* conveniently ignoring the parts of it that would make the reply you intended to write look imbecilic? Read Mr. Flint’s post. If you actually read it before replying, weep for the brain cells you killed in writing your reply without remaining cognizant of the contents of Mr. Flint’s post, and read it *again* paying attention this time. If you can’t muster the miniscule amount of effort required to do so, here’s *one* quote that is relevant to your senseless, ridiculous, pandering sentence parsing: “…And don’t anyone bother protesting that Gallo didn’t actually make that charge directly since she did, after all, distinguish between “extreme right wing” and “neo-nazi.”Yes, I know she did—with the clear intent of smearing the two together. This is the [same] sort of rhetorical device that Theodore Beale loves to use also…”Clear enough for you? No? There’s more, but you’ll have to use your brain and read them yourself, because I’m not going to quote the whole damn thing just to pander to your intellectual slothfulness. The exercise will be good for your poor, misused brain, too, so it’s win-win!
        Ciao! 😉
37. G. Filotto on June 9, 2015 at 6:29 AMEric,
    You are either an idiot or a liar.
    I am an UNREPENTANT rabid puppy supporter, so according to you I am a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot.
    You moron. The longest relationship I had, spanning over a decade is with a girl of decidedly brown colouration. I have more brown people in my actual family and my only “bigotry” is towards dishonest hypocrites.As for my politics, I essentually have none. The closest I come to it is Lysander Spooner’s unmatched essay Natural Law, or the Science of Justice.If you think me “rude” you should consider that you made demonstarbly false accusations about me and my character without knowing me or any of the other many like me who are simply sick to death of dishonest poseurs like you and your ever-status-aware kind.If you have any integrity, retract your baseless accusations and don’t censor this comment.
    • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 4:06 AMI don’t like the harsh language and namecalling, especially in a post seeking redress for being called (admittedly more unpleasant) names yourself; that said, I admit that I understand your anger at being (deliberately or merely carelessly…or not carelessly so much as…sloppily?) labeled a “racist, sexist, homophobic bigot” especially in a post castigating another person for doing something similar. I am tired now, so bear with me, but I do recall -though I am, if anything, a “sad” puppy supporter rather than a “rabid” puppy supporter…not to say I oppose the “rabid” puppies so much as to say I don’t consider myself a member of that particular…line?…of the overall “puppy” “brand” so to speak- feeling a bit of a ruffle in my feathers when I read the portion of Mr. Flint’s post that stated: “…But, never mind. This is a technicality. It is a simple fact that Beale and his supporters are vicious bigots and that’s as far as I’ll go in defending them….” especially because I happen to “know” (on the internet…hence the quotes) more than one (mostly, and as far as I can tell) “unrepentant” Beale supporter (which doesn’t mean, in my understanding, that they unreservedly agree with Mr. Beale on all subjects. Hell several of them are atheists, and at least two are openly, proudly gay…and inarguably *not* homophobic…I suspect that homophobia would make their sex lives that much more interesting, lol…) and they are, essentially without exception, incredibly opinionated, happily eloquent, doggedly persistent, insatiably curious, sharp-witted, unapologetically vexing, and undeniably decent, goodhearted ladies and gentlemen. I like and respect them, even when they piss me off, pardon my French, in much the same way that I like, respect, and admire Mr. Flint, even when *he* pisses me off from time to time. That said, I feel I must point out that the statement I quoted came after another statement; a statement that, while not precisely contradicting, certainly *appears* in my mind to contradict the later statement. (The one quoted above) That is: “…Calling someone “extreme right-wing” when you immediately tie that to “neo-nazi” is disingenuous at best. The transparently obvious purpose is to blend “extreme right-wing” with “neo-nazi” in the minds of the readers. The problem is that terms like “extreme” and “right-wing” are inherently vague and the one term in the sentence that is not vague—“neo-nazi”—is wildly inappropriate.It’s not even appropriate applied to the Rabid Puppies. The two most prominent figures in that group are Theodore Beale (“Vox Day”) and the author John C. Wright. I have been severely critical of Wright and will continue to be, but I have seen no evidence that he either belongs to, is affiliated with, or even has any significant relations with any member of a neo-Nazi organization. The situation with Beale is perhaps murkier, because some of his statements certainly resonate with those made by neo-Nazis. But I have seen no concrete evidence in his case either that would support the charge of being a “neo-nazi.” …” Followed by: “…Okay, enough on that. Now let’s move to the second sentence, which is the heart of her statement:“They are unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic.”This statement is not even true applied to the Rabid Puppies, although it certainly comes close, especially on the issues of sexism and homophobia. The problem is with the term “unrepentantly” which gives Theodore Beale more credit than he deserves. It would be more accurate to say “the Rabid Puppies are racist, sexist and homophobic even though they try to worm their way out of being blatant about it, especially when it comes to race.” (Where Beale likes to use William Buckley’s old tactic of insisting the problem isn’t an “inherent” defect in black people but simply the fact they haven’t been civilized long enough to have a culture equal to that of white people.)But, never mind. This is a technicality. It is a simple fact that Beale and his supporters are vicious bigots and that’s as far as I’ll go in defending them. …” (Yes, I know I already quoted that last bit. I left it in for…context?)
      Anyway, my point is that I understand your anger, but I’m not certain Mr. Flint *intended* to say that anyone who supports “Rabid Puppies” is “racist, sexist, homophobic [etc]…” without exception, or even that *most* of those who support “RP” are those things. That’s why I was a touch confused by his statement regarding the “bigot[ed]” nature of all of Mr. Beale’s supporters. I don’t know Mr Beale’s views very well -or even faintly, for that matter- but as I said I “know” several persons for whom a description of “Beale supporter” would not be grossly inaccurate, and none of them could -in my opinion- be fairly or justly called “bigots” of any stripe. I’m unsure if any of this makes sense, as I’m very tired, and in pain, but I hope it’s at least vaguely comprehensible. Be well.
      😉
38. Rick Bennett on June 9, 2015 at 7:03 AMForced apologies mean nothing. Some here have said that being a man requires an acceptance of an apology. I agree, conditionally:1) The apology has to reach those that were hurt/offended.
    2) The apology has to be genuine. An apology along the lines of “I called you an asshole. I sorry you are an asshole.” is not an apology, but yet another slick insult.
    3) An apology dictated to be made by someone “higher up” in order to save a job or mitigate damage, which is quite obviously not genuine…it not worthy of acceptance. And being a person of honor, male or female, means standing for whats right, not for whats convenient.
    4) Gallo was following the standard line, reiterated by far to many, trying to, as some right above this response have done, lumping ALL together in an attempt to smear. No doubt it was an off the cuff remark made when she thought she was being witty and/or clever along the lines of renowned smartass and smarmy jerk David Letterman. However, she was found and the remarks were sat upon by someone just as capable and nasty as she, Vox Day. I’ve never read his stuff, have no idea what he’s about, and honestly, don’t care. But, GALLO put this out there. Day could not have used it against her without her fingers and brain working together to type the response she seems to think so clever and damning. She was hoist on her own petard. No amount of cover or abetting by her supporters make up for her original statements or the insulting pseudo-apology she made, unless other more generous than the average person accept that apology.As an adult with a nine year old son, who has said “sorry” for doing something wrong, I’ve told him before “Sorry” means nothing if it’s not genuine, and actions are not taken to correct the situation you made or contributed too.I see nothing in the “apology” from Gallo indicating that it is genuine. It is, instead and as I see it, yet another entry into the “I’ve been caught out, and told to do this to keep my job/spouse/relationship/fame/status or else.”Just my thoughts.
    • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 8:36 AM1) The apology was made in the same thread as the comment, and been widely reported elsewhere.
      2) The apology clearly withdrew the broad sweep that had offended so many.
      3) Facts not in evidence. You’re basically declaring it’s not genuine, because you don’t think it’s genuine.
      4) You’re saying she wrote the comment, and now no apology will cover it? Some people disagree with you, starting with our host.tl;dr: your argument is a tautology.
      • Kevin Marks on June 9, 2015 at 9:33 AMExcept that on it’s face Gallo’s “apology” is not genuine…as 20 or more people have already observed and remarked upon at various venues.
        • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 12:23 PMOh sorry, we’re applying the “20 or more people can’t be wrong” rule? I didn’t realise.
          • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 4:14 AMYou really ought to consider stopping when you’re not any further behind than you already are, at this point. “Ahead” vanished as a possibility several inane, witless comments like this one ago. Just a suggestion.
            😉
39. Nicki on June 9, 2015 at 7:41 AMThis is what we call integrity. Something Gallo and her hysterical, shrewish ilk all lack. Thank you!
    • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 8:38 AMNicki, thank you for posting a short comment that tars a large number of people with a broad brush. You might notice we’re discussing someone who just apologised for doing that very same thing. Perhaps you should too?
      • Nicki on June 9, 2015 at 9:18 AMConsidering that her supporters have been ardently defending her, I’d say my comment is right on, Mark. Fact is her non-apology was just that. Fact is she libeled – yes LIBELED – a large group of diverse authors and those who enjoy their works with the neo-Nazi label (something many folks, including myself – an escaped Jew from the Soviet Union – find offensive to the core). And those who defend her are, indeed, hysterical and shrewish. Do you consider yourself part of that group? Then, accept the broad brush strokes. Anyone who supports these lies falls into that category.
        • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 12:26 PMNicki, I support Gallo against the unpleasant hordes who are screaming that it’s not a good enough apology, and she should be sacked, etc etc. I accept your broad brush strokes.Of course, the irony of someone who has just screamed “Libel” applying broad brush insults is very clear.
      • Nicki on June 9, 2015 at 9:19 AMAnd by the way, there’s a difference between “I’m sorry you were offended by my lies” and “I’m sorry I told those lies.”Perhaps you should learn it.
        • Richard Hartman on June 9, 2015 at 4:51 PMTHIS. For those looking for a succinct explanation of why the apology was not sufficient. THIS.Oh, and there was no retraction involved, either.
          • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 4:16 AMHear, freaking hear! Huzzah! Etc.
      • Jody on June 9, 2015 at 10:48 AMMark,
        You seem to not understand the word “ilk”. In this case it refers to people who act in a similar way. That is those who reflexively refer to the puppies as extreme right wing, misogynist, homophobic neo-nazis. The difference is, and if you’ll actually read Eric’s post you’ll see it, Ms. Gallo is the first person of import in the industry to say it. If you’ll read Eric’s other posts on this topic he has dismissed the Sad Puppies claims of institutional bias because the vitriolic screaming against them was being done by fans and not professionals in the field.In all your comments on this thread you seem to have missed that point. Ms. Gallo’s comment and those comments by those supporting her confirm the Sad Puppies belief and tend to sway those on the fence to the Sad Puppies side. “See? There is an Important TOR Editor flinging nonsensical poo.”
        • James May on June 9, 2015 at 12:16 PMWrong. Gallo’s comment is a drop in the bucket from scores of organization presidents, editors, best-selling award nominated authors, authors in general and Tor bloggers.They are a flood numbering in their thousands and all based on the premise men are misogynists, whites racists and heterosexuals homophobes. There is virtually nothing flowing the other way. That is an easily documented fact.
        • Mark on June 9, 2015 at 12:32 PMJody, I’ve definitely gotten the import of “ilk”, thank you very much. Personally, where puppies are “extreme right wing”, or “misogynist”, or “homophobic”, or “neo-nazis” I identify them carefully, individually, specifically. Each of those accusations can be applied to various puppies – not all puppies, and not all of those individual descriptions – but there are individuals of that ilk within the puppies. Not doing that (in a casual comment on a personal FB thread) was Gallo’s mistake.
40. Pinko on June 9, 2015 at 9:49 AMI (disclaimer) am one of the evil Lefties who are out to viciously slander all hardworking americans, enslave their children, suck their souls,etc.
    I do believe that the author of this post has hit the proverbial nail on the head. Words do matter, and inflated rhetoric leads to the same pointless immature tripe that internet comment sections are bursting with.
    Thank you for calling Irene out on that. She could (and should) have worded her statement differently, leaving out emotional and irrational accusations.
    Don’t take this to mean that I’ve changed my mind about the issues. I haven’t and won’t, but I do think we (people who actually want to discuss ideas) need to make sure that we deliver measured, logical responses to everything we say, lest we become included in the garbage heap of emotional nonsense.
    • Nicki on June 9, 2015 at 10:06 AMI agree with you 100 percent. It’s one thing to disagree with political or even social ideologies. It’s quite another to claim your opponent is evil for believing what he or she believes.
      • Trevor on June 9, 2015 at 10:27 AMSo you call out Ted Beale for the same thing, right? Because he goes out of his way to call people he disagrees with libelous names (Scalzi…McRapey).
        • Nicki on June 9, 2015 at 10:35 AMI refuse to visit his blog or read his writings at all. I think he’s a douchebag of the highest order, and I won’t give him hits. No way.
        • Jody on June 9, 2015 at 10:58 AMVox Day is a disgusting human being. Even more so because I don’t think he actually believes most of the bull he spouts. That’s why there’s so much plausible deniability in almost all his writings. He’s an attention whore who loves the hate the left has for him because of the knee jerk support that hate engenders for him on the right.I think that’s kind of what this thread is about. There’s no conversation when one side or the other is rabidly following the lead of the person screaming “burn the witch!”
    • James May on June 9, 2015 at 12:08 PMGreat. Let’s start by agreeing on a definition of hate speech when it comes to racial and sexual groupings here and now.
41. David Lang on June 9, 2015 at 10:56 AMFor those who are trying to draw the distiction between the Sad Puppoes and Rabid Puppies in what Gallo said, it’s important to note that even if that distiction is there, one of the people on the Sad Puppies Slate that she is then calling a neo-Nazi is John C. Wright. This is an Author who’s books are published by Tor and who’s books she has created the covers for and worked with directly (and if they both keep working for Tor, presumably this will happen in the future)So, even if you think she didn’t intend to call the Sad Puppies neo-Nazi’s, it seems clear that she did intend to call an author who’s published by Tor and who’s books she is expected to work on in the future a neo-Nazi.
    • jayn on June 9, 2015 at 12:23 PMMs. Gallo said pretty clearly in her FB comment that she was referring to Sad Puppies as “extreme right-wing” and Rabid Puppies as “Neo-nazi”, “respectively.”That is, it’s the Rabid Puppies she’s calling Neo-Nazis. So unless Wright self-identifies as a Rabid Puppy, then Gallo’s not calling him a neo-nazi…nor is she calling any author on their slate a neo-nazi, unless you seriously affirm that any author that appears on a Rabid Puppy slate becomes a Rabid Puppy, willy-nilly.
      • David Lang on June 9, 2015 at 1:22 PMThe anti-puppies have been calling anyone on the RP slate a rabid puppy. Just like they’ve been balling anyone on the SP slate a sad puppy (if they aren’t calling them a rabid one because Vox Day copied most of the SP slate)And the comments about the quality of the authors involved is going to apply.
        • jayn on June 9, 2015 at 1:50 PMWe’re not talking about a nebulous group of “anti-puppies”. We’re talking about one person, Ms. Gallo, who called the Rabid Puppies neo-nazis.So unless you can show that the authors on the RP slate identify THEMSELVES as Rabid Puppies (and I rather doubt you can), then you cannot say that Ms Gallo called those authors neo-nazis.
          • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 4:33 AMBut Mr. Flint can, and did. And he was correct. Weaselly parsing of a hateful statement to make it seem less hateful is the mark of a disingenuous, juvenile mind. Mr Wright felt he had been called a Neo-Nazi, and Mz. Gallo’s “apology” stated that she had “painted” authors published by Tor with her “too broad” brush. She did not state that she had not meant to tar the authors on the slates with the “brush” you allege was only aimed at the “self identifying” members of those groups; in fact, she mentioned them (the authors) as persons her “brush” (never acknowledging the wrongness of her statement, but rather that she used too broad a brush and “some were hurt”) hurt. But please, pander harder. (I rather doubt you can)
            Ciao! 😉
42. Jon on June 9, 2015 at 11:10 AM@Mr. Flint,Why are you evaluating the truth of the “slate of bad to reprehensible works” statement based only on the best novel nominees, only two out of five of which were on the puppy slates? There are plenty of other categories with higher up to total puppy dominance in which to look for bad and reprehensible, though by the accounts of most reviewers at least some of the slated works are at least competent, and probably only a few are arguably reprehensible, depending on what the onlooker considers beyond the pale.
43. Chris Clark on June 9, 2015 at 12:05 PMDear Mr. Flint,Thank you for continuing to speak out on the issues associated with this year’s Hugo awards and the Sad/Rabid Puppies groups. I have found your posts to be consistently reasonable and appreciate the calm basis with which you have approached these matters.A few times I have found myself weary enough of nasty rhetoric coming from both sides to consider dropping scifi from my reading pile and each time I thought, “Well, let me see what Eric Flint has to say before I go down that path.” While have no illusions about anyone noticing (or being concerned about) the absence of one more fan from the legions, I do appreciate that there are folks like yourself who still strive to be fair-minded in the midst of the mess.
44. Tom Kratman on June 9, 2015 at 12:13 PMViktor, is necessary the necessary standard? If so, why?
45. George Phillies on June 9, 2015 at 12:33 PMAs always, thank you for your sound and rational comments.As I have said before: All across the universe, fen stand in awe and admiration at the ability of Hugo fandom to revive that most ancient and honorable rite, the all-hobby fan feud. It’s truly amazing.Thank you also for bothering to tell us who Irene Gallo is. I’ve never heard of her before.
46. ticticbooom on June 9, 2015 at 12:51 PMTor delenda est.
47. Bill Wade on June 9, 2015 at 1:11 PMSpeaking as an reader of SF&F from authors on both sides of this controversy, and having no particular interest in the Hugo awards, I make th following observations:
    1. The attitudes ascribed by the Sad Puppies to the “leftists” who appear to dominate the publishing industry and its periphery are real. The rancor and contempt displayed in their blog and social media commentary is unmistakable, and senior personnel at Tor have participated.
    2. At least some of the principals and supporters of the SP group quite predictably engaged with a matching level of hyperbole, but not nearly with the same effort or reach.
    3. Irene Gallo’s apology was utterly insincere. She displayed contempt and dismissal of those who objected to her mischaracterizations in a public forum, speaking in her role as a staff member of Tor, and her apology in no way convinced me that her beliefs have altered.
    4. Having observed the behavior of Gallo and the Nielsen Hayden’s, were I a politically conservative author, I would never sign with Tor, and I have absolutely no doubt that they would prefer it that way.
    • Calbeck on June 9, 2015 at 6:08 PMIn all cases, what we are seeing here is an active chilling of speech between what one publisher or another considers “tolerable” or even “hate speech”. Tor, being the largest publisher with the most reach, SHOULD be the one making the biggest pushback against that mentality — not adopting it as unwritten policy.
    • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 4:35 AMHear hear.
48. Shara on June 9, 2015 at 1:18 PMIf you’re not already aware (and if someone else pointed this out in the comments, I apologize, as 100+ comments are a LOT to wade through), Chuck Wendig put up an interesting angle on this whole FB post and apology business. I’d love to hear your thoughts, be it here in the comments or in a separate post.http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2015/06/09/i-stand-by-irene-gallo/
    • Calbeck on June 10, 2015 at 6:33 AMHaving looked at the article, Mr. Flint, it’s all about how Ms. Gallo did nothing wrong and that anyone who took offense to it are assholes.“Because when you call assholes assholes, they tend to flail around and make louder asshole noises — it is the asshole’s natural defense mechanism…. the publisher wants to publicly shame a woman editor for saying things that other editors have said in the past… This is the publisher that housed a known harasser of women”Then he goes after quotes from Beale and Wright by way of “proving” Ms. Gallo was totally right in everything she said about the SP/RP groups as a whole.Hate to point it out, but these are pretty much the sort of people James was going on and on about. They not only aren’t shocked by calling people “racists, bigots and homophobes”, but they are absolutely convinced the labels are accurate and they are acting righteously in saying so.
      • Bibliotheca Servare on June 10, 2015 at 7:48 PMYep. How refreshingly…oops, I meant “tiringly” unoriginal and imbecilic. It’s amazing the persistence with which some folks brandish their ignorance, group-hate, and knee-jerk bigotry, isn’t it? “When you call assholes assholes” indeed. I wonder what “Chuck” would say if I called him the asshole that he is behaving like. Mayhap he’d “make asshole noises” or somesuch thing? No…oh wait…the content of his reply doesn’t matter, according to his metric! Eureka! Anything my opponent says, however reasonable, I can disregard as “asshole noises” once I have mentally, and publicly, declared they are assholes! And then they magically cease to exist! Right? Hrm…that doesn’t sound correct…darn you, so-called “real world” and darn you, “logic!” Ruining my/Chuck’s perfectly good plan/theory of reality! *grumblegrumble*
        Lol, your point was well made, I just wanted to add a dash of “this is how Chuck appears to function on an intellectual level,” for laughter-inducing purposes. 😉
49. Richard Hartman on June 9, 2015 at 3:41 PMThank you for posting this. Very well done. However, with regard to “I am trying to persuade them that their analysis of the situation is faulty” I ask you to consider the situation you are just now writing about. Part of SP1 was the premise that “authors with the wrong politics who got on the ballot would be attacked” (Correia). You, yourself, just wrote “if the people I’m arguing with are not only convinced that they’re being slandered but actually are being slandered”. Does this not actually point to their analysis being correct? There are some other issues, some of which differ between the three campaigns, most of the ones I have seen have been borne out. Correia (The Combat Accountant) even has some statistical breakdowns of nominations from previous years that show far too much regularity. I am just saying that as you attempt to persuade them that their analysis is faulty … keep in mind the possibility that it isn’t.
    • Lynell on April 27, 2017 at 11:11 AMInortmafion is power and now I’m a !@#$ing dictator.
    • kredite online berechnen on May 31, 2017 at 11:16 AMI love homemade jam. They taste so much fresher! The only problem I have with the homemade jam is that I just can’t finish them before they are due. Our neighbours are mostly seniors, so they are so alert to sugar consumption.
50. spanish fly powder on June 9, 2015 at 3:48 PMHello There. I discovered your weblog the usage of msn. That is
    a really well written article. I’ll make sure
    to bookmark it and come back to learn extra of your useful info.
    Thank you for the post. I’ll definitely comeback.
    • Sigivald on June 11, 2015 at 6:37 PMDie. In. A. Fire.I direct this at whoever’s running the spambot, that is.