Sunday, June 21, 2015

Latest developments over the Tor imbroglio


It's been an interesting weekend, watching and reading the comments flowing from both sides of the debate over the Tor boycott.  I'm no longer surprised by it, having seen so much of it, but I'm nevertheless at a loss to explain the sheer, unbridled lack of sanity and common sense exhibited by so many of the so-called 'social justice warriors'.  Their navel-gazing naiveté is mind-boggling.  A few examples:

  • Speaking of Vox, he's taken note of speculation from SJW's and their ilk that the individuals at Tor who've been named in connection with the boycott may be at risk of violence.  Since I've seen not a single reference to that - even the vaguest hint - from our side of the fence, I, like him, can only put it down to paranoia, or an utterly warped, twisted sense of reality (or the lack thereof), or deliberate lying.  It's absolutely insane . . . yet they're hyping it up.  (Edited to add:  James Sullivan absolutely nailed the process in a comment at Vox's place.)
  • This isn't exactly a new tactic.  SJW's are usually the ones screaming in manufactured outrage about the non-existent 'rape epidemic' on US college campuses, or tackling problems of discrimination.  Trouble is, almost every time they rally around a cause like campus rape, it has a habit of falling apart when tested for actual, forensic, verifiable, legally defensible evidence.  That says far more about them than the purported problems about which they protest.
  • I was particularly amused by an article in online magazine Starburst dated Saturday, June 20th, 2015.  It appeared less than 24 hours after I called for a boycott of Tor (which was immediately endorsed by a number of others), yet it claimed:  "An attempted boycott of publisher Tor Books by right-wing online activists has spectacularly backfired as booklovers across the world have responded by purchasing books from Tor to show their support."  For heaven's sake, the boycott had only just begun, so how was it even remotely possible to conclude that it had backfired?  Wishful thinking to the max!  It'll take months before any results are apparent.  We're in this for the long term.

It's no wonder many complain about being 'burnt out by the social justice outrage machine'.  They're doing it so often, in so many spheres, that they're destroying their own credibility.  I can see the same thing happening in the case of the Tor employees about whom I've complained.  The evidence, in their own words, of their bias, distortion and lies is overwhelming . . . yet the SJW's are still trying to manufacture outrage that they've been called on it.  What's more, when we do call them on it, all too often their response is to delete what they've said, as if to pretend that it never happened.  For example, Moshe Feder's Facebook post to which I linked yesterday has since vanished from view, along with all comments from readers.  Fortunately, I saved a couple of versions of it first, as did many others, so that won't help him.

Lies, fantasies, projection, delusion and deception.  That just about sums up the SJW approach to this entire matter.  It's rather tiresome.  How refreshing it would be if one of them would actually have the honesty to admit that the named individuals at Tor have, indeed, said what I've proved they've said, and did, in fact, at least imply (and probably meant literally) what I (and many others) understood them to mean.  That's objectively not open to debate.  The evidence is conclusive.  With that admission, we could get a really useful debate going by asking what can be done to resolve the problem.  Unfortunately, that hasn't happened, and I see little likelihood of it in the short term.  Hence . . . the boycott.

Peter

34 comments:

m4 said...

That's just... sad.

Dave Freer said...

Peter, doubtless the boycott will be called 'dead' many times. And the deader they call it, the more certain you can be it is not true. The funny thing about most of puppy-kickers is their grasp of math and logic. Even IF (and as has been displayed, many of tweets claiming to be 'buying' are spambots)the puppy-kickers manage to get a 'sympathy buy' (and there will be some) - do they imagine these are not just largely existent reactionaries, already customers, who are spending extra? (I'd guess most of the 'I bought' translates into 'I claimed to buy' - but lets assume they really did buy.) Can they sustain that to make up for the lost customers? I doubt it. And lost is lost. Let's face it - a customer who fled by the rooftop doesn't come back to the door cheerfully.

It's going to be interesting times. I think a substantial number of the loud puppy-kickers are 'grace-and-favor' clients of Tor - part of the clique that had some senior people at Tor at its center and hangers-on and camp-followers. I'm sure while the Tor staffers have obviously been told to wind their necks in - and thus the facebook censoring and deleting - they will continue to encourage their clique in private venues. But if I was one of those clients I'd start realizing that if their 'inside-route-to-publishing' goes south, they're going to be very exposed, defending the indefensible, asking for backup that no longer can assist.

My advice to them - which is well meant, but will be ignored is 'Soek Dekking boeta.'

MidKnight (#138) said...

Somehow the Monty Python pet shop sketch comes to mind - where they think we're the delusional shopkeeper.

"That boycott isn't dead, it's merely resting after a powerful long squawk. Or pining for the fjords."

Anonymous said...

This is typical propaganda style sock-puppetry. A story is manufactured to state a wish/goal. Then plenty of online "useful idiots" will link comment and cite this as proof of that really being the truth on the ground.

Usually works in e-space but in meatspace where actual dollars are exchanged... not so much. I'm really at a loss of why this is occurring at all. Even in Hollywood everyone agrees that money drives your business. Taking stands that lead to an angry mob... is a good way to be a highly principled poor person. Tor is in the business to sell books not to promote any agenda.

So how were four people allowed to get so far off the reservation on this? I mean now you gotta get rid of the Moshe character just to save face. There appears to be a policy in place to silence activist stoking of the negative Tor publicity. Now this dude puts gasoline on what Tor hoped were dying embers.

And now Tor is in a double predicament because if they dismiss/end connections. This loose cannon may go off a fully start a publicity debacle.

I just think this shows that McMillan has lost control of Tor and needs to come in and clean house. If this gets any more out of control McMillan could be impacted... and then they might shutter the whole outfit just to limit the damage.

Anonymous said...

Vox has some opinions on the shooting on Alpha Game Plan.

They're shitty, of course.

I am not even remotely surprised to hear what is reported to have triggered the Charleston shooter:

From the dawn of time, men have attempted to protect their tribe's women from mating with outsiders. And women have socially ostracized men who pursued women outside the community. Black women hate it when black men date white women. Asian men hate it when Asian women date white men. And obviously, many white men are less than entirely enthusiastic about white women engaging in what they describe as "mudsharking" and "coalburning". I tend to doubt my Native American ancestors were particularly pleased when my grandmother quite literally married "off the reservation".

I'm not surprised that there has been such a vicious and violent reaction to the constant barrage of "ebony and ivory" in the media. The more the media pushes, and the more white girls respond to the propaganda by choosing black men over white men, the more extreme the reaction is likely to be. There is no inevitable "progress". Sooner or later, the pendulum always swings back.

The New York Times asked "who radicalized Dylann Roof?":

The pro-diversity crowd radicalized Dylann Roof. Sexual competition is pretty close to a zero-sum game, so every time a white girl decides to have sex with a black man, the seeds for another spurned Dylann Roof are planted. And those potentially violent seeds are watered every time BM-WF couples are advertised on television shows, on advertisements, and in the movies. Few of them will sprout, since the average man will simply write the girl off and find someone else, but the more that are planted, the more rage-filled killer omegas there will be.

m4 said...

@Anon7:01: So you recommend we go back to the "good old days" of segregation and this won't happen? Because that's the take-away message I'm getting from your post.

Anonymous said...

I'm quoting Vox.

But I forgot to italicize.

Paul, Dammit! said...

Yeah, that anonymous comment is pretty much reading the same thing to me.

Some cogent points, though. I got some crap from some women when I started dating my wife, and there were some attempted put-downs regarding her accent, immigration status, my 'inability' to settle down with a white woman, and some other vile shit... but these comments only came from women. Liberal, white.
Men, on the other hand, pretty much just said "Oh man, she's gorgeous." So the anon did have a point. I suspect the writer didn't parse through it and see the connotations, but I may be projecting.


Also, no more Tor books for me pending their policy changes.

Nathan said...

Anon,

What does Vox's article have to do with Irene Gallo's gaffe and Moshe Feder's defiance of Tom Doherty's attempt at calming down the situation? Vox could be Lucifer Morningstar and Angra Mainyu embodied on earth and it would still not absolve Gallo and Feder of their comments typed out by their own hands.

m4 said...

Ok, so Vox is an idiot. That doesn't do him any favours, but then he's not a senior member of staff at a publishing house that is trying to sell me books. He's also not directly insul- Ok, so he's insulting pretty much everyone involved in a mixed-race relationship (also known as "a relationship"), and if he did this within arm's length or talking to anyone I know, I'd probably have something to say about it. As it stands, not my monkey, not my circus.

By all means, voice your opinion that he's stupid, but that doesn't excuse TOR of their BS. For now let's hang Hitler, we can worry about almost going to war against Stalin later...

Anonymous said...

SJW's have been exposed for what they are across the social spectrum and most people utterly reject them. They can no longer do their damage from the shadows. I think their hysterical vitriol is a sign of desperation.

kent18 said...

Anon@June 22, 2015 at 7:01 AM

Failed attempt at distraction/derailing from demonstrable pro-TOR lie is failed.

Is that it, then? Is that all you've got?

snowcrash said...

@m4: Ok, so Vox is an idiot. That doesn't do him any favours, but then he's not a senior member of staff at a publishing house that is trying to sell me books.

Ummm, actually, Day is the founder and lead editor of the publisher Castalia House, which has eleven items on the Hugo ballot this year. Coincidentally, Castalia also had eleven items on the Rabid Puppy slate (and at least two in the Sad Puppy slate IIRC)

AV said...

Anonymous sounds an awful lot like one of Vox's online stalkers. There's one in particular who really hates him, and goes out of his way to put out of context quotes in every thread he can find that discusses Vox. It got so bad that the police in the stalker's area thanked Vox for bringing him to their attention when they brought him in for violating state Internet Trolling laws.

On topic:

Peter,

Thanks for sticking your neck out and speaking out against what is going on there. I feel like these are people who didn't learn basic manners from Mom or the Kindergarten teacher. We all work with people we sometimes dislike (or even hate). Adults keep their mouths shut and don't attack the people they are trying to do business with. Little kids whine until they get their way or someone disciplines the whining out of them.

We are dealing with a handful intellectual and emotional children at Tor.

m4 said...

@snowcrash

They sell books, they don't sell me books. A subtle difference, granted, but I take considerably more offence when it relates to someone I actually do business with.

Rolf said...

The behavior and reactions of the SJWs is the same tiresome, boring, hyperventilating "save the world" self-assured and self-centered narcissistic blather you'd expect from tweeners, and it would be easy to dismiss it as irrational non sequiturs.

BUT.... :-)

Those sort of people are the foot-solders of every totalitarian regime of the 20th C that collectively slaughtered more than a hundred million of their own people, all the while sleeping well at night assured they saving the world from bad people. We laugh at them at our peril. They are like the tiny yapping dog that couldn't bite through our jeans, and can in reality can barely even scratch our skin... but is rabid, and will cause a mass panic and huge over-reaction among all the "intelligentsia" looking on, who don't want to simply put the darn critter down because it looks so cute.

Peter O said...

Actually, I view Moshe's deletion as TOR/Macmillian actually ENFORCING the new social policy. He obviously got it pointed out that saying it's his own views, then going and still speaking in the royal we when talking about TOR isn't exactly Kosher.
So while they're still lacking in the PR response department, I think the internal policing is actually coming in effect.

VD said...

He's also not directly insul- Ok, so he's insulting pretty much everyone involved in a mixed-race relationship (also known as "a relationship"), and if he did this within arm's length or talking to anyone I know, I'd probably have something to say about it.

As someone who is the product of two mixed-race relationships, I daresay I know considerably more about the consequences of mixed-race relationships than anyone who might happen to be in one. And everything I said is absolutely true, whether anyone likes to hear it or not.

But as several commenters have correctly pointed out, none of that has anything to with the unprofessional behavior of Tor's senior employees or the Tor boycott.

And yes, the comment is merely Andrew Marston engaging in yet another attempt to stir up trouble.

Anonymous said...

How is that out of context? That's the entire post.

m4 said...

@VD Nice of you to make an appearance. I disagree somewhat with your opinion as a whole (as mentioned above), but the offence comes not from your philosophy as a whole but specifically in your statements which imply that mixed-race relationships can only ever be the product of a media campaign, not for any reason which creates "ordinary" relationships.

I disagree on two other points - the overall sentiment that normalisation of interracial relationships is a bad thing, and that it is reasonable to be offended at being refused in favour of an interracial relationship than of one of the same race.

You can be a jealous murderer without being racist, and you're just as much an idiot.

However, all this has nothing to do with TOR, as just about everyone here has pointed out. If you have a problem with VD, take it up with VD. If you have a problem with TOR, take it up with TOR.

Anonymous said...

You do realize that the boycott is VD's thing, do you?

m4 said...

@Anon You're either trolling or you're not reading. Peter has declared his own boycott with a slightly different set of conditions to VD. One has asked for resignations and the other has not. The two are cooperating, which tends to be a good idea when you have a common goal. Remember how Russia was the enemy, then we became friends because Nazi Germany was a really big problem that needed solving, and then we went back to being enemies? I don't think that Stalin's crimes make Hitler's crimes any less important, and I don't think that sharing a common enemy automatically means we have to agree with each other on all points.

anderyn said...

So one thing I must ask you, and I am genuinely curious--- how did Irene Gallo's statement insult you in specific and particular? She spoke of groups who were composed of unknown numbers of individuals who might or might not share the qualities of being sexist, racist, homophobic.... but that the spokesmen of the groups certainly were/are. To me, that's not insulting anyone who is just a reader nor anyone who is just a writer.... you have to identify yourself as a Sad or Rabid Puppy before any possible insult could be taken and even then, it is pretty clear to me that she wasn't thinking primarily of the rank and file.

As a Vile Faceless Minion, I am puzzled by this. I was not insulted. I am not insulted by anyone's opinion who is not a friend or relative, because that person does not know me.

Peter said...

Anderyn, I refer you to my open letter to Mr. Doherty of Tor:

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2015/06/an-open-letter-to-tom-doherty-of-tor.html

I believe it answers all of your questions.

Anonymous said...

Clamps troll is Clamps.

Concern troll is concerned.

Dismissal troll is dismissing.

VD said...

the offence comes not from your philosophy as a whole but specifically in your statements which imply that mixed-race relationships can only ever be the product of a media campaign, not for any reason which creates "ordinary" relationships.

Didn't intend to imply that nor do I believe that. Both of the mixed-race relationships that produced me long preceded the current interracial propaganda campaign, after all. I expect some current relationships are the result of the campaign and others are not.

The campaign is pretty ridiculous in the UK. I recently saw a commercial in which every single couple was interracial. Not a single BB, WW, or AA couple. The funny thing is that the UK doesn't have all that many black actors, so you occasionally see the same guy playing the black husband to different white women.

Angus Trim said...

Thanks Peter

Support from the dry Northwest

kamas716 said...

I agree with Peter O, I see Moshe deleting that and other threads as Tor (or more probably MacMillan) putting their foot down about the actual rules the company has.

Old NFO said...

It has been interesting to watch... And they are NOT SJWs... They are SJBs... Bullies... plain and simple...

Anonymous said...

Peter, long time lurker, and love your books, so I thought I would pass on a quick thought.

Given how many people are still unaware of the boycot and at some point they may try to find some information on it you may want to set up a separate landing page, or website, that acts as a central clearinghouse for all the information.

And my couple of books a month habit is going anywhere but TOR.

B

Jeff Duntemann said...

Peter: Stand your ground, and don't let the trolls distract you from the mission. It's a deliberate strategy: derail a discussion by invoking Vox Day, no matter how off-topic he might be, which in this case would be completely.

It's just nuts. I've been in SF fandom for 42 years now and I've never seen anything even remotely like this. A few weeks back I was called a moral coward on one of my Facebook posts, simply for refusing to condemn Vox, when I barely knew who he was. And, as in this case, the post had nothing whatsoever to do with Vox. Vox Day has become a shibboleth: You must condemn him on command, or it's into the Outer Darkness with you.

I'm a retired book publisher, albeit tech books rather than fiction. If I were Macmillan corporate management, I would put Tor up for sale right now, get the best price I could for it, and wash my hands of this endless cultural warfare. Tor is a microscopic part of Macmillan; Macmillan wouldn't even know they were gone, which is one reason little action has been taken thus far. A smaller, hungrier publishing group could make Tor staff stick to the knitting, and the imprint would be immeasurably better for it.

I'm not calling for anyone's dismissal. But as I've said elsewhere, in almost any other publishing company (including my own) staff who posted comments like the ones we've seen from Tor would be gone before the afternoon was over.

Linoge said...

I'm sure you've come to this conclusion yourself, Peter, and I'm equally sure you've taken appropriate precautions, but I still feel it is worth noting that the whole "ZOMG, the boycotters could be VIOLENT!" schtick could very well end in people being SWATted. I like to think the situation can remain civil and confined to the written word, but history has shown that such radical folks don't always play by the rules.

perlhaqr said...

I'm in on the boycott. It'll be sad to not buy Sanderson's books, but, I'll get over it.

Stephen St. Onge said...

"She spoke of groups who were composed of unknown numbers of individuals who might or might not share the qualities of being sexist, racist, homophobic..."

        That is not true.  She said all the puppies were "unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic," and that we got " slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot."  She also said we "are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy."  She has lied about me, and I won't buy from Macmillan while she works for them.