Obnoxious Twits and Conventions

I wrote this tweet the other day about a minor dustup in the science fiction community:

Which led an obnoxious twit to blather, more or less, “Yeah, well, I think you’re an obnoxious twit, Scalzi! What if I want you banned from a convention?!?” I think the argument here (such as it is) is that I would recoil in horror at the idea that a science fiction convention might decide to disinvite me, of all people, to their soiree.

But inasmuch as science fiction conventions are almost always private entities with control over who they allow in and who they don’t, in fact, I find it entirely unobjectionable that one might wish to seek to keep me from attending, for whatever reason. So I suppose if someone wished to register a complaint about my attendance, they should take it up with the convention committee. If the convention committee was convinced (and presuming I was planning to attend at all), they would let me know I was not welcome. Seems pretty simple.

And if a convention decided I was not welcome at their event, how would I take it? I mean, I would hope they’d tell me before I made flight arrangements and my hotel rooms were non-refundable, but otherwise, meh, it’d be fine. Generally I prefer not be in places I’m not wanted, and if the convention committee was telling me to go away, that’s a pretty good, non-subtle hint. Which means my weekend is now free! Which is excellent, I usually have things to do on a weekend, even if those things are “watch six hours of How It’s Made in a row and then take a nap.” Which these days is a pretty great weekend, I have to tell you.

(Mind you, I would be curious to know what the material objection to my presence would be; I don’t really have a reputation for being, say, a grasping creep who has designs to harass people and then pretend like I’m the injured party, for example, or for being a difficult attendee in a general sense. But I’m sure someone could come up with something. Whether it would have merit would, of course, be up to the convention itself to decide.)

But certainly, if you have a problem with me attending a convention, let the convention committee know. I have absolutely no doubt they will give the complaint the consideration it deserves.

80 thoughts on “Obnoxious Twits and Conventions

  1. Notes:

    1. Play nice in the thread.

    2. I’m writing about this obliquely mostly because the obnoxious twits in question have a real “senpai noticed me!!” thing going so it amuses me not to name them because I know it frustrates them. I will not require anyone else to adhere to this, but it would fun if everyone played along.

    3. With that said, I’ll note the various obnoxious twits who are defending the obnoxious twit who got his attending privileges revoked are trying out all sorts of various bad arguments, including that there’s a racial angle. Inasmuch as one of the convention guests of honor has apparently the same ethnicity as the obnoxious twit in question, this seems… unlikely to me. Which means if someone tries to pull the racism card in the thread, I’m likely to Mallet the comment. Please note my tolerance for bad and/or insincere arguments in general is also going to be pretty low.

    4. On a personal note, I will also acknowledge that aside from my general reputation in con-running circles (which seems okay as far as I can tell), it’s relatively rare at this point for me to attend a science fiction convention where I am not explicitly invited, usually either as a guest of honor or a special guest. This means to a greater or lesser extent that I’m already vetted by the convention committee before I attend, and I suspect it also means they know I have my fair share of detractors, most of whom are camp-followers of some description to a couple of folks whose antipathy to me is well-known in science fiction circles (the person who whined about me in this case fits that description). I imagine that would have some bearing on how such a complaint was received, as well as the ultimate disposition of the complaint.

    Which is to say none of this happens in a vacuum, which is a fact these obnoxious twits seem to have a problem understanding. They apparently expect always to be taken at immediate face value, rather than accept the fact that the cumulative knowledge of the community re: their actions and behaviors comes into play. They also appear to continue to be flummoxed that most of the community persists in not being the gormless patsies they imagine them to be in their heads.

    5. Also on a personal note, and because the obnoxious twits in question are dunderheaded enough that this has to be spelled out for them, slowly: I have nothing to do with the convention committee that came to this decision, or with their reasoning for doing so; there is no cabal, or if there is, I’m not in it. Likewise, my opinion and assessment of the obnoxious twits in question is my own and independent of any action and opinion of the convention in question. The attempts to tie my personal comments to a larger conspiracy against these obnoxious twits is one reason why these twits are so obnoxious.

  2. In this case, the twit’s own actions caused the convention to pull his membership, but as a general rule, I agree with you John. If you have a problem with someone who may be attending a convention, let the concom know, and then be guided by their decision (or lack thereof) as to whether you yourself attend.

  3. Your thought about other conventions now having a template to rid themselves of obnoxious people was the second thing I thought when I read about the “boycott”.

    My first thought, as one of the Hugo administrators during the Sad/Rabid Puppies debacle in 2015 was “At least San Jose’s Hugo folks will have an easier time than we did in Spokane.”

  4. I would only have an objection to being banned from something, only because I try like hell not to be an obnoxious creep, and so wouldn’t care for the accusation. So considering that, if I was being an obnoxious creep, I fully expect to be banned.

  5. In this case, the twit got banned because he declared his intention to do something that violated one of the written rules of attendance (i.e., photographing people without their consent). My guess is he did this hoping to be banned so that he could paint himself the victim, brave li’l Alt-Hero that he is.

    I went to my first con last year; hoping to attend Worldcon one of these years. Probably as just another fan, but someday, maybe ….

  6. Oh well, if only it would be always that easy to get rid of more twits. :)

    I think one could totally make a case against you on grounds of… well, ermm, stuff, you know. :D

  7. John you may be too deep in sigmoidal concentration to notice that you do indeed have a reputation for being a “grasping creep” who harasses people and then pretends that nothing of the kind happened.

    Your blog is full of it and is indeed evidence that you are an obnoxious twit.

    If humility was required for life you’d have dried up long ago and spread on the breeze to continually irritate the sinuses of good people, as is your want now.

    In case you’ve ever studied history, hubris brings a fall. I’m not sure why so many temporarily successful people fall victim to the Evils of Pride, but it’s clear that you’re eaten up with it.

    Repent! Repent! Repent!
    Before you’re nothing but dust wiped away by an unwilling maid.

  8. Mxyzptlk:

    Well, I’m certainly aware there is a small group of committed haters who would wish to suggest so, just like they want to suggest that my career is in a free fall, my publisher is on the verge of collapse, I’m insufficiently virile, etc, and so on. I do suspect that the evidence of such an assertion will be as convincing as the evidence of these other assertions.

    But again, by all means, please inform the concom of any convention I plan to attend of your “evidence.” I’m sure they will find it instructive, although possibly not in the way you would like to suggest.

  9. John –

    Given that the twit in question blocked me after I called him out for supporting and piling on anti-Semitic comments (including the use of the phrase “dirty Jew”), I can personally confirm for you that his claims of racism being directed at him are hogwash. But he’s a non-white member of the “alt-right”, so naturally, they love to act like any criticism of his terrible personality is racist.

  10. BTW, just based on the style and word choices from his first post, I’m willing to put about $20 up that “Mxzyptlk” is the twit in question, if you hadn’t figured that out.

  11. Two thoughts: Reading around the interweebs, it seems Del Arroz claimed that he was going to wear the bodycam to protect himself from people making false allegations of harassment during the con. I don’t know the guy from Adam and have way too little time to sort out the competing claims of harassment from him and his detractors. But, I will note that Correia and NK Jemisin had a little spat where she alleged on Twitter that he said terrible mean things on a panel they were both on and his response was, lets review the tape because all the panels are recorded…..and she shut up pdq….

    Second thought is this: I’m disappointed that sci-fi writing, in my mind, is devolving into a sad parody of Soviet Writer’s Union, where only the literature that meets the correct political thought of the day gets the applause and attention from the powers that be with sci-fi literature.

  12. Well, the pseudo-intellectual use of big words (“sigmoidal concentration”? Really?) to make yourself sound smart while simultaneously accusing others of hubris is pretty universal among them, I grant. But the religious allegory and Random Capitalization is less common, and reminiscent of his unwanted replies to my Facebook posts back in the day.

  13. Bearing in mind how instrumental you were, personally, in the drive to get sff conventions to adopt Codes of Conduct, I’d be much more interested in your views about this application of a CoC. Do you think it was appropriate? Why? What do you think we should take away from it?

    The comment “Generally I prefer not be in places I’m not wanted, and if the convention committee was telling me to go away, that’s a pretty good, non-subtle hint” is disappointingly trivial.

  14. And no, he claimed he was going to wear the bodycam because he was “in fear for his life.” If you’re wondering about the basis of this claim…

    It’s because he got glitterbombed once.

    For someone who delights in calling others “snowflake”, it’s amazing just how pathetically sensitive some of the twits are. You can’t make this shit up.

  15. Christopher:

    1. I’m certain someone is very intent on making himself appear a victim.

    2. We’re not here to litigate Corriea/Jemisin, thanks.

    3. Lol, no.

    Mike Glyer:

    Eh. I’m okay with you thinking the response is trivial, because for me it is in fact trivially simple — Bluntly, I’m not going to second-guess a convention that’s decided it doesn’t want me around. I have other things to do with my time, and this would not be a battle my ego would require me to fight.

    As for whether in this case the convention’s decision to yank attending status was merited, it seems so to me based on what I know (and what I know of the obnoxious twit in question), although as noted I haven’t spoken to anyone involved about the decision and am not privy to the full data set they used to make their decision. But even if I disagreed with it, they’re the concom and it’s their decision to make. The decision might have consequences, although in this case, the consequences (other obnoxious twits deciding not to attend in solidarity) seem like an upside to me.

  16. Geez, Scalzi, don’t you know that the only response to idiocy is to flail around screaming and calling people names? I was just about to get the popcorn and settle in to watch the fight. You’re spoiling all the fun! (Sarcasm font needed)

  17. Not a Twitterer or sci-fi follower (I’m a Scalzi fan for other reasons) so I don’t know Mxyzptlk from Adam’s off ox, but it’s a pretty sorry writer who does not know the difference between “want” and “wont” (as in “as is your wont”).

  18. The “Burrito Lover’s Convention”, aka BurCon, has been reviewing your attendence requests for years. Doesn’t seem likely, really…

  19. If you are ever uninvited from a convention and the reason does not in some way involve an argument over proper burrito ingredients, I’d be disappointed.

  20. As the concom took the twit’s plans seriously and their action has gotten him publicity, you’d think he’d be thrilled. And as his twitty friends have been saying that the con is declining and unimportant, you’d think they’d be glad of an excuse to spend their money elsewhere. But they’re all furious and screaming like banshees. Outrage junkies?
    On the other hand, the people whom the twit threatened to harass at the con, and the people responsible for running the event, and making it a positive experience for all, seem to have a much better chance of having fun.
    Looks to me like everyone wins.

  21. Hey, Tanek, Scalzi’s said some pretty negative things about coffee, too, while insisting on drinking cold brown fake sugar water. It’s not just his questionable taste in burritos.
    And the big problem with his “if I weren’t wanted I wouldn’t go” position is that we don’t get to see any epic flounces. Most of the people who flounce out of here just don’t have the talent for doing it well, and Scalzi could pull it off if he wanted.

  22. I think it was a horrible decision.

    Mr. Arroz claimed he intended to wear a bodycam to the convention. A simple reminder that this was against the code of conduct would have been warranted. If Mr. Arroz decided to wear a bodycam into private areas after the reminder then it would make sense to ask him to leave.

    One thing we can be sure he wasn’t banned for was for something he actually did at the convention.

  23. I wonder how many obnoxious twits are going to assume this is about them…

    Said obnoxious twit always thinks it’s about him. This time, he’d happen to be right. But he’s often taken almost anything as a subtweet aimed at him. He once tried to make people talking about the Charlottesburg Nazi Rally as subtweeting him.

  24. Jo:

    The second paragraph of the fourth point in my top comment is relevant to your comment.

    Also, of course, your opinion, like mine, and anyone else’s, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. We weren’t asked. But if you disagree with it, you can of course not go to the convention, and otherwise not give it your money.

  25. This has been an entertaining excuse for procrastinating about cleaning my house! I had no idea who the twit is question was so I did a little research. He may have made a threat to wear a body-cam, in a con suite, not public areas, which would clearly violate the C.O.C. and this appears to be the reason the Con committee initially gave for banning him. But they quickly followed up with a comment that other behaviour led to their decision. It took very little research on my part to discover that he is a serial troller and harasser and had threatened to continue this behaviour at Worldcon. People who are joining in to this discussion, and others I have looked at today, who are suggesting that he should just have been politely warned or that he was banned for his race, politics or religious views are either being disingenuous or lazy.

    I also think that suggesting that the committee should not have announced this decision is not taking into account the people who will now be attending Worldcon who may have been reluctant to do so when they thought they would encounter him. In my misspent youth I was on many con coms and had to deal with drunk and obnoxious attendees in the con suite. The committee had every right to prevent what would clearly have been unpleasantness.

    @ Bill Stewart *so* want to see the flouncing!

  26. John,

    Commenter “Jo” has been very active on Mike Glyer’s File 770 blog about the issue, and may be a sock puppet for the person in question. Which you may already know, and not care about. In any event, not engaging further seems like it might starve the troll.

  27. If only it were so easy to keep obnoxious twits out of other areas. Life would be so much more peaceful (albeit slightly less interesting).

    Also, @Dana, Doritos on a burrito sound AWESOME!!!! I have to try that.

  28. Those who are using their psychic powers to deduce who Jo might be should stop and ask themselves why Jo seems to be able to write with a coherency and emotional self-control never exhibited by the person they claim is behind them.

  29. Jo said, “One thing we can be sure he wasn’t banned for was for something he actually did at the convention.”

    Worldcon’s behavior strikes me as preemptively defensive and coming from a highly insecure place. Not much different than classic Country Club behavior come to think of it.

    Paging Judge Elihu Smails.

    Paging Judge Elihu Smails.

  30. sez jo: “One thing we can be sure he wasn’t banned for was for something he actually did at the convention.”

    Well, yes. Seeing as how the convention in question has not, in fact, occurred, nor yet will it occur for another 8 months plus change, it would be… hmm… risible in the extreme to suppose that the concom’s decision did have anything to do with anything the twit might have done at the convention. Which, as noted above, has not occurred yet.

    Is Jo perhaps tryna suggest that a concom should not take John Doe’s past history into account when deciding whether or not they should allow John Doe to attend their convention? If so, that would be ridiculous. But if not, it’s difficult to see why Jo felt that it’s not right to ban a person unless your precognition says they’re going to cause trouble was anything within bazooka range of a reasonable argument.

  31. John can confirm Im not a lefty. The guy deserved to be banned. I saw the email exchange mike glyer posted that he had with him. He was going to be a jerk in order to drum up piblicity fir his book. Its what this is all about.

    The mistake you are all making is supporting the con not listing the reasons in detsil for banning him. Jim Butcher is a reasonable guy. If he thinks the Con is being ignorant you are doimg something wrong. They dont have to state why he was banned. Not doing it is ignorant.

    Also speak in vernacular when you give the explain why he was banned. You guys dont realize how silly you sound when you speak in leftwingese.

    Basically a statement of.

    He made it clear he was coming to the con specifically to annoy people and cause problems. Here is a link with evidence of threats he made. No one wants to be aroumd someone worh a body cam on. This is a publicity stunt.

    Im confident if Larry Correia was at an event wirh his friends and so e jackass came up with a body cam he would want him gone. Everyone would.

  32. A sockpuppet of an imp from the 5th dimension wrote:

    Repent! Repent! Repent!
    Before you’re nothing but dust wiped away by an unwilling maid.

    This may be some obscure literary reference (Google & Google Books find 0 hits for the phrase), but all I could think of was “He’s predicting that John Scalzi will be disintegrated (and presumably, his remains swept up by Cleaning Services)?”

    And from there, to Duck Dodgers in the 24½th Century.

    Anyway, there’s obviously nothing to worry about until disintegration pistols are actually invented. But then, watch out!

  33. Enh.

    It appears that this guy publicly harassed convention staff online. Given that, it’s logical that WorldCon did not want him attending and further harassing staff and other attendees in person, as he claimed publicly that he would do. They believed his public threats and took him at his word. If the guy wants to now claim that he was lying about what he would do at the convention, he can hardly expect WorldCon staff to have psychically guessed that he was lying about it. He publicly stated that he wouldn’t cooperate with convention staff and follow the Code of Conduct, so he again can’t expect WorldCon staff to psychically guess that he was lying about not cooperating. That lack of cooperation is also grounds for the staff to ban a prospective attendee as a danger to the other attendees.

    When a person registers for a convention, they are responsible for reading the Code of Conduct and they are agreeing in registering to follow that Code. And the Code says that the convention staff can ban people they consider dangerous to their other attendees and who refuse to follow the Code of Conduct as this guy publicly claimed he would do. Bringing a video camera and filming in private areas and/or an individual at the event without their consent is explicitly not allowed in the Code of Conduct of WorldCon that it was the guy’s responsibility to read and follow. It is also illegal under California law, which means if the guy did it, that would make WorldCon legally vulnerable to legal action and lawsuits from the guy’s actions. It is the attendee’s responsibility and agreement on registering to know and follow the Code of Conduct and to know and follow the laws of the state in which the convention is held (and in which this guy apparently lives.) It is not WorldCon’s staff’s job or responsibility to “remind” an attendee about what is in the Code of Conduct they already received or to instruct them in state law. WorldCon staff is not this guy’s mommy.

    The idea that a guy who publicly threatens to commit a crime and harass people at an event has to be allowed into the event to see if he will actually do what he said he would, rather than banning him from the event so he can’t commit the crime and harassment he threatened to do, is ludicrous. If someone publicly threatens to come to your house and scream at you and chase you around with a video camera, you don’t tell the guy come on into my house and let’s see if you actually do it. You tell the person they can’t come into your house and you might tell the police the person has threatened you. WorldCon has absolutely no responsibility to believe that this guy won’t follow through on his public threats towards the convention. They took him at his word and banned him.

    Claiming now that oh he’s harmless and just enthusiastic, WorldCon should have just patted him on the head and told him to be a good boy — that’s silly and it’s treatment that no one is obligated to provide him. If you don’t want to be banned from an event, don’t publicly threaten to break the event’s rules and state law. That’s your own responsibility, not the event’s. And if you don’t think you can abide by the Code of Conduct of a convention, then you don’t go to the convention. Because if you threaten to break the Code and film people illegally — whatever your motivation for it — people will take the threat seriously.

  34. I only read through the comments to post a joke about burritos, unfortunately to find I’d been beaten multiple times.
    Can I have everyone banned from this event for thinking all my best ideas before I ever get around to thinking them?
    (Just for the record, if it’s wrapped in whatever you wrap a burrito in, it’s a burrito, but I heard there’s some guy named Burrito Crusher who has influence at cons.)

  35. I am a little uncomfortable with the WorldCon’s choice to ban him preemptively, but Kat Goodwin has thoroughly demolished most of the points I had considered. She did leave one out of her excellent analysis however: WorldCon is a private organization and can do basically whatever they like about membership, including banning all left-handed paperhangers, if they so choose just as long as the ban doesn’t violate the various laws against discrimination.

  36. Granny Roberta, wadr, the fifth circle of hell is for places that put the dam’ rice inside the burrito. It’s a *side* dish. And while I love ‘fish tacos’ my one and only experience with a seafood burrtito was a waste of mealtime. Some things should remain sacred ;-)

    Maybe we *should* have a burrito convention; the panel discussions might be awesome…

  37. A convention is not obliged to give anyone a podium from which to rant from. It’s a priveledge to be allowed to attend, not a right.

    I do think the US needs to have a go at producing laws that prohibit hate/discrimination speech. If the UK and Germany can both do it, surely the US can? The Germans have a real phobia about losing civil rights after their experiences under communism and yet they’ve managed the balance between banning hate speech and allowing free speech. Why can’t the US manage the same balance? Being an asshole to people should not be ‘exercising free speech’.

    P.S. Burritos is definitely the reason, maybe coke Zero too:-)

  38. I find hateful, racist speech *useful* – useful for identifying the hateful and bigoted. It’s harder when they speak in ‘code’.

  39. I was sadly surprised that, apparently, the first post made by the imp from 5th dimension apparently *wasn’t* supposed to be read as heavy-handed sarcasm.

  40. “If a person tells you who they are, believe them.” Maya Angelou
    Twit: I’m planning to attend your con and be a jerk by explicitly violating con rules and doing it to get eyes on my new book. Oh, and for the lulz.
    Con. Thank you for warning us in advance, by the way, here’s your entry fee back, and you’re banned. We don’t want or need someone whose express reason for attending is disruption.
    Twit: What — what — you mean you’re not going to let me in to express my annoying views and harass other con goers? Waaahhhh!!! U R violatin’ mah free speech rights!!!eleventy!!111
    Con: We are not obligated to give you a soapbox.
    Twit’s followers on Twitter: Whaarrrrrgarbl! Mad!! Ranty McRantRant!
    Con: Sigh.

  41. I’m curious to know exactly what phrases are “leftwingese”. Maybe I’m just so far in the bubble I don’t see it, but the only made-up term I’ve seen tossed around is “SJW”, which I believe means either “strawman” or “cat-owner”.

  42. @ lrucker2016:

    I’m curious to know exactly what phrases are “leftwingese”.

    I’m guessing, here, but I wondered if the term “harass” was meant, given that Guess wrote “annoy people and cause problems”, perhaps meaning that as the non-leftwingese decoding of that term.

    Otherwise, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  43. JohnD:

    She did leave one out of her excellent analysis however

    Nah, I kind of covered that it’s a private event with the screaming in your house analogy. A house is private, so is a convention. You can’t just wander into a convention — you have to register and pay to go into the event.

    Or to give another example, someone stands in the parking lot of a Best Buy store and screams at the staff there, then announces that he’s going to come into the store and annoy the staff and customers and videotape them. Do the Best Buy staff let him come into the store? No, they do not. They tell him he’s banned from the store and if he doesn’t go away, they have security or possibly even the police run him off. No one would argue that Best Buy has to let the guy into the store to see if he does what he’s threatened to do first before ejecting him. So why would WorldCon risk having this guy come in and harass, as he said he would do, not only their staff (most of whom are volunteers,) and other attendees including vendors who have valuable merchandise, but the staff of the hotel or convention center where the event is being held? That’s not logical. It’s a massive lawsuit waiting to happen.

    This guy is an adult. If an adult wants to do something at an event, it’s that adult’s responsibility to research whether or not it’s allowed by the rules of the event — rules which were handed to him — and by the laws of the county/state where the event is. Ignorance of the law or rules is not an excuse for exemptions or do-overs, as anyone who’s gotten a speeding ticket driving in a non-resident state can tell you. You can certainly object to rules in the Code of Conduct and make an argument/pitch that they be changed. But if you decide to go to the convention, you AGREE to follow the Code of Conduct. This guy broke the Code by harassing staff publicly online and then broke the Code again by threatening to harass staff and illegally tape when he got there. According to the registration agreement that he agreed to when he registered, they had full grounds to prevent him from coming. People have been banned from events for a lot less.

    But this guy thinks WorldCon is a daycare center that has to patiently instruct him on behavior and watch over him at the convention like a babysitter. And whining that he hasn’t done anything — they have again public evidence of his harassing staff and threats to do more at the event that he freely gave them. But I guess after Lou Antonelli publicly bragged about committing an illegal act of swatting to try and get David Gerrold shot at WorldCon and not only didn’t get brought up on police charges for the crime but was allowed to attend the event as a nominee, they think they can just keep making threats and again, everyone will just pat them on the head. But that incident sincerely shook up the people who volunteer their time to run conventions about convention safety, as did the recent murder of an innocent person from a geek swatting crime. So now, logically, WorldCon believes this guy when he made his threats and harassed staff, and they are protecting the event from further damage from him that he publicly stated he’d inflict at the event. They are protecting the convention from lawsuits and cops showing up by his illegally taping people, as he insisted he would do. He can say now that he was lying and will be a good boy at the event, but again, they have no way of knowing if that’s true or not. And it’s not their job to help him fix himself.

  44. I hadn’t been reading any fandom related websites lately, but when I read John’s post, I thought, this is either a sexual harasser making a stink, or a certain ass trying to turn himself into a cause célèbre, and it’s probably the latter, and sure enough, it was the latter. I won’t miss him or Jim Butcher when I attend Worldcon this year.

  45. @ Owlmirror
    Let’s see: “annoy” got here from Old French via Middle English, while “harass” came directly from French. If they want to go full Uncleftish Beholding on it, they’ll have to try harder.

  46. I’d forgotten about Uncleftish Beholding. I was reading the first word as Uncle Ftish. Someone must have that as a handle somewhere…

  47. @lrucker2016:
    In my admittedly off-the-cuff attempt to model Guess’ thought processes, the word’s origin wasn’t relevant, but rather something like this:

    1) Harassment (of a sexual nature) has been in the news lately
    2) Many of those accused of harassment have been prominently of the right wing, eg, O’Reilly, Ailes, Trump, Moore
    3) [Confused partisan thinking goes here]
    4) Therefore, harassment is something that left-wingers accuse right-wingers of doing.
    5) Therefore, “harass” is leftwingese.

    It may not make much sense, but the accusation of using leftwingese didn’t make much sense either.

  48. @lrucker2016 & HelenS:

    . . . And one of theym named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in to an hows and axed for mete and specyally he axyd after eggys, and the goode wyf answerde that she could speke no Frenshe. . .

  49. Oh, right, the same local guy who claimed, last year, to be subject to anti-Hispanic bias at the hands of convention co-chair Castro & head of programming Rodriguez, the guy who grossly misrepresented his dealings with said convention, the guy who falsified via creative editing an e-mail exchange with Mike Glyer about that incident — that guy — is now saying ‘Help, help, I’m being repressed!’ about my level-headed friends at SFSFC/Worldcon 76.

    Eh, no, I think I’d rather credit SFSFC as truthful and reasonable, instead of that guy.

    About the notion that they’re somehow obliged to wait for at-con ‘hijinks’ before showing him to the Great Egress: I have a motto about that, the point being, it’s smarter to just say bon-voyage early and, you know, get back to running the convention. So, delighted that SFSFC/Worldcon 76 did the smart thing with Mister Prominent Local Author.

  50. @Cara E.:

    I was taking “leftwingese” as meaning words of more than two syllables?

    Be fair; Guess did write “vernacular” rather than “folkish speech”, for which I think we can all be grateful.

  51. In respect of the ridiculous racism charge, I eventually worked out what this is about – they have a completely incorrect model of what liberal/left people think racism is.

    They think it’s “any time any white person does anything that harms any non-white person, that’s racist”, so they think that excluding a Hispanic person is racist by our definitions of racism (they don’t think it’s racist by their own definitions, but they think we’ve been hung by our own petard).

  52. I, for one, have been happy to have John as a guest at conventions I’ve been involved with, I’ve even taken him to In and Out. I’d do it again, if I had the chance. As for the twit being discussed, he’d not be welcome. And certain other authors, one of whom I’ve brought out previously, I’d not likely want to have on my guest list.

  53. @po8crg: That’s the most charitable interpretation, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on with the likds of JDA and VD. I think they believe racism is over (except racism against white people, natch), and accusations of racism by “SJWs” are made in bad faith to gain advantage. After all, it’s what they would do. And it’s what they are doing.

  54. I had never heard of this particular twit, and when I attempted to find out more, the search results were mostly “Evil SJWs attack conservative author”. This has the benefit of giving me a lot of useful context without my having to follow any of the links . . . but I still wish I could find more information from less crazed sources.

  55. Re: Guess’s asserition that “if you’re losing Jim Butcher, you’re losing”.

    Look, I’m a fan of Butcher (though I’m concerned he’s going to have to drag himself across the finish line of the Dresden series, in much the way I dragged myself to the end of “The Aeronaut’s Windlass”). But Guess is assuming facts not in evidence. Jim Butcher is the proverbial “private person”. I.e., he’s not a recluse, but he keeps his views largely to himself. But that doesn’t inherently constitute “reasonable”. This has caused a lot of people to try and claim him for their “team”. But that doesn’t inherently constitute “reasonable”. Everything he’s ever put out publicly indicates that he wants to claim a neutral (and un-nuanced) middle ground for himself. A combination of “Can’t we all just get along” and “Why does this have to involve me?” But that doesn’t inherently constitute “reasonable”. His recent statement indicates that he has, at least, some conservative reactionary leanings. But that doesn’t inherently constitute “reasonable”. (And frankly, could be guessed just by reading his books.) I’ve been involved enough in his fandom to strongly suspect that some of his friends and collaborators are likely to take him to task on this, so he may yet shift one way or the other. But that doesn’t inherently constitute “reasonable”.

    TL;DR: if your argument begins and ends with Jim Butcher, you don’t really have an argument.

  56. Ever since Trump got elected, I have been amazed how often the people with the most power and the most advantages are the loudest shouting for their status as victim.

    It happened a lot before, but, wow, it is the go to response now.

  57. As to the racism charge, it’s a tactic, and a pretty silly one. It’s the same reason the GOP chose Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate — because obviously if they picked a woman, feminists would *have* to vote for her! (What, look at her political positions, and what she stood for? Why, everyone knows women don’t do that. They just vote for women because women are women!)

    Because they can’t see past labels (woman, black person, gay person), they assume no one else can either. So if someone says they’re — say — an American Indian, or Latino, well, that’s like magic. We liberals will automatically just defer to everything that person says and probably just hand them all the awards also.

    Likewise if someone says they’ve been oppressed, obviously.

    That we’re able to judge people on their ideas, and their merits, and what they say and do, rather than on the labels they stick to themselves, yeah, unpossible.

  58. Erm, that may be a bit too ambiguous. My point was that this whole fiasco being one big setup so the nitwit in question can claim persecuted status. Thats why we’re here, right? He wanted to show how persecuted he is.

    And now that he cant, he wants to claim how persecuted he is.

Comments are closed.