All Foam No Bite

I started Hugo finalist blogging the day before yesterday, and on Twitter, some Rabid Puppy dudes offered their though-out perspectives. As always, their rhetoric was entertaining.

Discussing my take on Daniel Eness’s factually challenged article would have been at least interesting, if nothing else, but the Beale Bros weren’t up to it. Daniel Eness (aka XDPaul) himself also chimed in with the customary insults.

I did feel a bit bad for the Campbell-nominated fantasy author Sebastien de Castell who had thrown a couple of nice and neutral comments in earlier. He got tagged in a load of uncoherent pedophile tweets in the process.

Eness kept on doubling down on his silly accusations (which is odd because I thought that according to Beale’s rules that was what SJWs are supposed to be doing but what the hell):

Facts are nice, but you can’t invent your own.

Here’s the thing: if there is a single Rabid Puppy supporter out there who seriously thinks that Eness’s essay has any merit, I’ll happily discuss it with them. It will take some convincing to make me believe that the smear piece wasn’t written out of sheer spite, but I promise to listen to anybody who can articulate their opinions a bit better than the two social injustice warriors above.

So: please comment.

In Beale’s blog, it was suggested that people should read Spacefaring, Extradimensional Happy Kittens through Wayback Machine so that I won’t profit from my lies:

vp-diss

I can assure you that even though profits would be nice, I’m most certainly not seeing any, so you can safely read this page.


Update 10/5/2016:

I came across some more meta discussion about me on Beale’s blog. Even though a spectator voices some doubts, Daniel Eness is quite adamant that he managed to slaughter me on Twitter.

Pity poor me. This is hilarious.

vp-diss2

vp-diss3


Update 11/5/2016:

More discussion has taken place in Vox Popoli. I’ll screencap it below, because — at last — Daniel Eness and Lett Guo are even trying to offer something to back up their horror story.

I do have to give it to them: I honestly thought they were trolling on purpose, but after reading their back-and-forth with other popolists and author Sebastien de Castell, I’m beginning to realize that they actually believe what they are saying, at least some of it.

And that is baffling. I have no words, really.

But here’s the exchange:

vp-diss5

After some commenters suggested that de Castell wasn’t taking the Rabid Puppies’ side but was actually making fun of them, the author showed up to clarify that he didn’t wish to do either:

vp-diss6

The most interesting part begins here.

In their replies to de Castell, Lett Gou (whose name in Twitter is Lett Guo) and Eness try to describe what Rabid Puppies are up to:

vp-diss7

That’s quite a story:

Science fiction community has been secretly covering up a mass-scale pedophilia problem for decades. If that was true, I guess even Larry Correia (who kicked off his first Sad Puppies campaign actually in 2013) and Brad R. Torgersen are complicit, because they didn’t call their opponents out on it.

Fortunately, the facts don’t add up. Walter Breen was banned from conventions already in the 60s, when molesting children wasn’t taken as seriously as it is today. Of course, it horrible that, with the help of Marion Zimmer Bradley, he could go on abusing his own children as long as he did.

The question I have asked Lett Gou/Guo and Eness on Twitter (which they keep dodging) is this: Is there a single individual in the science fiction fandom who, in 2016, thinks Breen shouldn’t have been locked away decades ago? I’m still waiting for an answer.

Yes, the crimes these people have committed are hideous. Exploiting them in order to smear your fan-political opponents is just as hideous.

Now, let’s give the author of “Space Space as Rape Room” the final word:

vp-diss4

Here, Eness rehashes the talking points of his article, most of which don’t hold water.

Samuel R. Delany has never said that abuse is acceptable, and neither have Ellison, McCaffrey or others who defended Ed Kramer (or considered his treatment before the trial unacceptable).

Looking back, we of course now know that Nancy Collins was right about Kramer all along. The funny thing is, I’m pretty sure Collins is — according to Beale’s terminology — “an SJW”. And who remembers what — according to Beale — SJWs always do?

Yeah, and this:

I am serious in that I suspect Spacefaring Kitten is a possible past victim of child molestation or a current abuser or possibly both.

i_dont_even_cat

 

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “All Foam No Bite

  1. Doris V. Sutherland

    Just dropping by to post this interview with Milo Yiannopolous, who wrote the foreword to SJWs Always Lie:

    At around 2:21:20 in, he discusses adolescent sexuality. Some of the arguments he makes over the next four minutes are… interesting, shall we say, and I have to wonder what Eness and company would make of his comments.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Doris V. Sutherland

      (In retrospect, I didn’t pick the best starting point – 2:23:30 is where the most relevant discussion takes place)

      Like

      Reply
      1. spacefaringkitten Post author

        Haha, great quotes, Doris. These people’s “views” tend to shift 360 degrees depending on who they want to upset next, so ignoring most of it is probably the most sensible approach.

        Like

    2. Rob Dinsdale (@rob_matic)

      Milo is an ally so he can say and do what he likes.

      Let’s not kid ourselves that the Rabid Puppies have any sort of moral convictions. I mean, VD is apparently an upstanding Christian but has a PUA-themed blog as a sideline and counts Milo, Roosh and that weird juice-selling divorced fake lawyer as his closest allies.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  2. Andrew

    Well, here we go again…

    Wouldn’t describe myself as a rabid. Wouldn’t describe myself as an anything political. Here’s why Daniel Eness did a good thing, in my book: 1. No one likes to talk about child sexual assault and he talked about it and 2. He said it was wrong.

    If anyone was maligned in the particulars, I imagine they’re fully capable of speaking up for themselves. From my point of view, they SHOULD speak up. Obviously, this topic makes everyone feel like garbage. It makes me feel like garbage. Still needs to be discussed.

    I would be more understanding of the disinclination if, for whatever reason (and I fully admit there are numerous positives here) all the concerned parties HADN’T decided to step up to the plate and become anti-rape advocates.

    I’m a rape survivor, when I first saw that happening, I thought: “Oh, that’s probably good.” Not sure what the history is of anyone else reading this but it seems like it’s a fairly new thing for people to be public about. Probably a good thing we’re talking about this at all.

    So, you asked for merits so here are what I see as the merits…

    When Moira Greyland opened up about her mother repeatedly assaulting her as a child I was astounded at her courage. I know how people knowing that about you can change the way they treat you and not always for the positive. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to be “known for” being a survivor of childhood sexual assault.

    Her mother was a beloved creator and from what I gather a big figure in Fandom. It seemed to me like her story should have made some splashes in a community that was so anti-rape. Granted, it did make some. However, it felt like a pretty straightforward execution of logic to expect that most of the same people who stood up against groping, degrading comments, etc would declare “This is fucked up, we believe you and we support you Moira Greyland!”

    That didn’t really seem to happen.

    I felt and feel awful for her.

    THEN…

    It came up that Sam Delany is an outspoken NAMBLA supporter.

    Well…

    I’ve thought about that a lot. Turned it over in my head to see if maybe somehow it wasn’t as bad as it seemed. I’m sorry to report that it still seems like a pretty big deal to me.

    The only reason I think it isn’t perceived as a bigger deal is because it’s such a big deal people don’t even know how to emotionally react to it. It trips the emotional freakout circuit. Which gives me a queasy feeling in my stomach because that kind of “Shut down and Tune Out” response is pretty much how most other Survivors I know get treated when they tell someone in authority what happened to them. No one wants to know. No one will choose to know.

    Part of me (the same part that hates crowds and talking to strangers) feels bad for saying anything. After all, who the hell am I? But… you linked to that interview with Will Shetterly… and you read it too, right?

    The best thing I can say is that it seems like Samuel Delany had a pretty bad childhood. Someone ought to have been there to protect him and they weren’t and of course he carries the scars. A lot of people I know who never went through treatment (including, apparently, Milo Yiannopoulos in the video above when he’s talking about being gang-raped at thirteen) say a lot of stupid shit to compartmentalize what happened. “They didn’t fuck me, I fucked them!” “I wasn’t like other children, I was special.” “I was the one who did the seduction, not them.”

    It’s one thing to not have dealt with your own emotional bullshit, it’s another to advocate passing that on that harm to other people. Seems pretty clear the latter case is what is occurring here.

    Even if NAMBLA was “just” advocating child-rape (Jesus Christ, what a qualifier) that would be bad enough, but it was also mentioned in that interview with Samuel Delany that someone involved in NAMBLA murdered a 10 year old boy (wikipedia gives his name as Jeffrey Curley). Here are the relevant details from Wikipedia:

    In 1997, Barbara and Robert Curley’s 10-year-old son Jeffrey was kidnapped, raped and murdered by two men, Salvatore Sicari, 21, and Charlie Jaynes, 22.[11] Jeffrey was a latchkey child and knew Sicari who lived only a block away. The two men befriended Jeffrey, taking him on car rides to dinners.[6] They offered to replace his recently stolen bicycle with a new one in exchange for sex. When Jeffrey refused, Jaynes killed him in the car’s backseat.[6] Sicari confessed to his part in the murder but insisted that Jaynes committed the murder. NAMBLA literature and a membership card was found in the backseat of the car and in Jaynes’ apartment.[6][11] Sicari was convicted of first-degree murder and Jaynes was convicted of second-degree murder and kidnapping.[12]

    What would you say to anyone else who was unashamedly a supporter of an organization where one of the members murdered a 10 year old kid? Further, who murdered that child as an extension of the principles of that organization? That’s a hell of an organization to be proud of and defend.

    I again felt there was a logical straightforward execution where it followed that the same anti-rape advocates who denounced sexism would decry this as inappropriate, wrong and explain the suffering of the millions of children who are raped every day across the world. NAMBLA is literally a rape-advocacy group. How could it get more clear-cut?

    The opposite reaction happened.

    I noticed everyone going out of their way to lay plaudits on the guy as if he was being unfairly characterized. Everyone interviewed him and made sure not to mention NAMBLA. There was even a glowing profile of him written in the New Yorker.

    What am I left to conclude?

    It sure seemed like the discomfort of the topic and the political inconvenience of denouncing a Feminist icon and a Black icon outweighed their respective wrongdoing. It sure seemed like the anti-rape and diversity advocates were afraid if they were more public about it that it would reflect poorly on “The Cause.”

    I like to believe the best of people. I like being wrong about bad things. Please tell me where I am wrong because those are the merits as I see them.

    So, in that kind of silence, Daniel Eness has my thanks merely for approaching the topic.

    I realize there are other political associations here. This is long and I’m just some guy who is writing a comment on a blog. But I think it might be prudent to remind people that people who profess to believe differently than you can be virtuous and that people who profess to believe the same things as you can be terrible.

    Like

    Reply
    1. spacefaringkitten Post author

      Thanks for your comment.

      I’m sure everyone agrees that sexual assault is wrong, perpetrators should be punished and victims should be protected.

      I’ve added more commentary and discussion to the end of the post since you posted this comment. I hope reading that makes clear what I object to in Eness’s essay. In short, I consider it a disgrace, especially the way he tries to exploit the victims in order to score political points.

      Below are some of my thoughts about the things you bring up.

      However, it felt like a pretty straightforward execution of logic to expect that most of the same people who stood up against groping, degrading comments, etc would declare “This is fucked up, we believe you and we support you Moira Greyland!” That didn’t really seem to happen.

      I’m not familiar with all of the conversation that may have taken place, but I’m not aware of a single person who thinks that Walter Breen hasn’t committed horrible crimes or that Moira Greyland isn’t telling the truth about him. The problem with her Hugo-nominated article, I think, is that in it she asserts that homosexuality causes pedophilia.

      But… you linked to that interview with Will Shetterly… and you read it too, right? The best thing I can say is that it seems like Samuel Delany had a pretty bad childhood. Someone ought to have been there to protect him and they weren’t and of course he carries the scars.

      Yes, I read it. Delany is entitled to his own perspective on what happened to him and whether it was harmful, but it’s hard to agree with it. As far as I know, pretty much all available scientific evidence on what is harmful for children is contrary to what he seems to think (he speaks about very young children there).

      Everything Delany says about NAMBLA, though, is that their newsletter discussed sexuality in an intelligent manner. He wasn’t a member, he knew personally only one single female member and never went to a meeting. So, bringing up a murder by someone connected to the organization is a bit far-fetched (especially when that took place years after Delany read the newsletter and gave his positive comment about it).

      What would you say to anyone else who was unashamedly a supporter of an organization where one of the members murdered a 10 year old kid? Further, who murdered that child as an extension of the principles of that organization? That’s a hell of an organization to be proud of and defend.

      As far as I know, NAMBLA’s objectives are “to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion”. I don’t support their objectives which I think are misguided and dangerous. However, murder or sexual assault don’t seem to have anything to do with them.

      I noticed everyone going out of their way to lay plaudits on the guy as if he was being unfairly characterized. Everyone interviewed him and made sure not to mention NAMBLA. There was even a glowing profile of him written in the New Yorker. What am I left to conclude?

      Well, you can perhaps blame the media for not bringing this up, but Delany himself doesn’t seem to be hiding his history with NAMBLA newsletter in any way. I’m glad that Shetterly took the time to ask the questions and that Delany took the time to answer them. It is an eye-opening discussion and I disagree with Delany, but I don’t think there’s any reason to stop writing glowing newspaper articles about his literary work.

      This is long and I’m just some guy who is writing a comment on a blog.

      Again, thanks for the comment.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Andrew

        Thanks for your comment

        Thank you for the reply.

        I know this is not an easy topic to discuss, even under relatively anonymous circumstances. I appreciate you taking the time. I’ll be as brief as I can in reply while still giving as much time as the topic warrants.

        I’m sure everyone agrees that sexual assault is wrong, perpetrators should be punished and victims should be protected.

        I don’t have significant doubt of this. I believe with my whole heart that given all knowledge, understanding and experience people will choose to do the right thing. It’s just hard to impart that sometimes.

        The issue I take is in terms of volume of speech and what I see as political self-censorship. It doesn’t matter if everyone believes something is wrong if no one says it out loud in public.

        If someone on the “Rabid Side” says something deemed offensive, it doesn’t take very long for there to be large volume of mainstream condemnation. I won’t delve into particular rights or wrongs because the history and the dialogue is a mess, but I observed a particular silence around this topic and the only people who seemed to speak to it were the Rabids.

        In an environment rich with anti-rape advocates that seemed both odd and alarming.

        To focus on Sam Delany in particular, I’m not saying Sam Delany should be dragged through the streets and burned at the stake or even that he’s done anything illegal. What I’m trying to say is:

        1. Sam Delany of his own free will has decided to publicly stand by an organization that is fundamentally pro-rape by any definition of rape someone who has worked with survivors would provide.
        2. A large number of SFF leading figures are self-described anti-rape advocates who have spoken out at length against other similar topics in the past.
        3. For reasons I can only conclude are political, they don’t seem to be willing to speak out against Sam Delany.

        I’ve added more commentary and discussion to the end of the post since you posted this comment. I hope reading that makes clear what I object to in Eness’s essay. In short, I consider it a disgrace, especially the way he tries to exploit the victims in order to score political points.

        I understand the objections with the article you raise, but I would ask that the focus of the article not be lost in the particulars. Anyone maligned, particularly John Scalzi, have ample public voice and power to defend themselves. The survivors have no similar power. There is not much speech at all on behalf of survivors.

        If you feel that survivors are being taken advantage of, consider that I am not the only survivor to have commented on those articles. Not even the only male survivor. Of course, I can’t speak for the multitudes but I did raise this topic with other people I know who’ve gone through treatment and we were all pretty perplexed that no one seemed all that bothered by a NAMBLA affiliation.

        The only explanation I can come up with is that people consider saying something about Sam Delany or Marion Zimmer Bradley and then stop themselves from publicly doing so because “It would make Vox Day happy.”

        I can understand why making Voldemort/The Bad Guy from Karate Kid III happy would give some people pause but… seriously?

        I’m not familiar with all of the conversation that may have taken place, but I’m not aware of a single person who thinks that Walter Breen hasn’t committed horrible crimes or that Moira Greyland isn’t telling the truth about him. The problem with her Hugo-nominated article, I think, is that in it she asserts that homosexuality causes pedophilia.

        I’m not without compassion for any person involved in this, including Marion Zimmer Bradley or Sam Delany. I know what kinds of things have to happen to twist someone up inside like that, especially in the former case. I would ask you to extend similar compassion and empathy to Moira Greyland.

        I don’t agree with Moira Greyland (who doesn’t have a gay cousin?) but I can completely see how she’d feel that way. How would any of us feel if our parents were leading LGBT advocates, abused us terribly, covered themselves in virtue by defending LGBT people, and then when it came to light what monsters they were no one involved in LGBT leadership reached out to you to express sympathies or even bothered to condemn your parents?

        Wouldn’t that leave you with a pretty terrible association?

        If that happened to me of course I would have deep suspicions about the LGBT community. Doesn’t mean she’s not wrong but I’m not a person who can help her with that and I suspect no one reading this is. That’s sad to me, but it doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve support for what happened to her.

        She’s also not a public figure.

        Yes, I read it. Delany is entitled to his own perspective on what happened to him and whether it was harmful, but it’s hard to agree with it. As far as I know, pretty much all available scientific evidence on what is harmful for children is contrary to what he seems to think (he speaks about very young children there).

        Everything Delany says about NAMBLA, though, is that their newsletter discussed sexuality in an intelligent manner. He wasn’t a member, he knew personally only one single female member and never went to a meeting. So, bringing up a murder by someone connected to the organization is a bit far-fetched (especially when that took place years after Delany read the newsletter and gave his positive comment about it).

        I know people who are involved in treatment for people who were sexually abused as children. None of them would say it’s not harmful. To say the least.

        People have a right to say whatever they want, of course. But when they’re a public figure and what they’re saying is insane, harmful and dangerous then it follows that other public figures who have stated they are against those insane, harmful and dangerous ideas should say “All of the things that person said are insane, harmful and dangerous.”

        Sam Delany has also been pretty open about the fact that children are sexually arousing to him.

        As to the NAMBLA newsletter not being connected to NAMBLA or NAMBLA being “not connected to murder or assault part”….

        What if a person said “The KKK newsletter really has some good ideas about race and some intelligent discussion about genocide. What? No, I’m not a racist. Of course I refuse to condemn the KKK how dare you even ask me to do so? They’re simply an organization for white people to feel pride in their heritage. Now I’m going to go write racist fiction about whites dominating blacks. Clearly, if you think that says anything about me being a racist then you are drawing conclusions out of thin air.”

        Or

        “Say what you will about ISIS, but they do put out some great magazines. Wow, why would you think I might have some sympathy for terrorism? Hahaha, why are you talking about the fact that all of my fiction depicts Muslim extremists destroying European cities? What a total non-sequitir!”

        As far as I know, NAMBLA’s objectives are “to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion”. I don’t support their objectives which I think are misguided and dangerous. However, murder or sexual assault don’t seem to have anything to do with them.

        How is that not exactly the same statement as “NAMBLA’s objective is to legalize the rape of children?”

        As children can’t ever give any kind of consent all adult/child sex is rape. Without exception. I’ll grant you murder doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with their objectives but it follows that rape certainly does. What else does abolishing age of consent laws accomplish? Murder only follows when you need the kid to shut up.

        This is anonymous so I can give some details. I don’t know what your history is with assault, I won’t make any assumptions. I do know if you don’t have one it’s hard to explain what it’s like.

        I’m going to be graphic here because I want to help you and anyone else reading understand that once you start thinking this is okay, that it’s all just “societal oppression” or “relative morals” it doesn’t ever stop there. These ideas need to be confronted every time they’re spoken of.

        ### Note by spacefaringkitten: I’m sorry but I had to edit this part of your comment and cut the paragraph with the graphic details of a rape of a child. I fear that publishing that sort of depiction here in my blog could possibly get me into trouble. I think your argument is understandable without it. ###

        I was lucky. It only happened one time. The next time someone tried to drop me off there I fought and held myself in the car and tied the seat belts around arms and ran away when they finally got me out. Everyone thought it was a tantrum except I guess they figured if it was bad enough I would try to run through traffic then it wasn’t worth the trouble of sending me back to the rape house.

        I had a couple cousins he seduced for years. One of them he kept going after until he was in his teens.

        If you stick your dick in a kid over and over again from the time he’s a child and then he keeps saying yes to it when he’s a teenager does that mean he’s giving consent? Or what if you find a kid who doesn’t have much and he’s really hungry or he likes your video games and he says it’s okay for you to touch him? Is that consent? What if you’re the only person that’s ever been nice to him or her and they’ll do anything to keep your attention? Is that consent?

        It’s hard for me to not be angry about this but that’s what NAMBLA is advocating for.

        That is EXACTLY what abolishing age of consent laws accomplishes.

        The thing I hate most isn’t even that it happened to me. It’s that I was too young to know what it was so that I could tell my dad and stop Roy from doing it to everyone else. I hope you have never endured that kind of hell.

        Well, you can perhaps blame the media for not bringing this up, but Delany himself doesn’t seem to be hiding his history with NAMBLA newsletter in any way. I’m glad that Shetterly took the time to ask the questions and that Delany took the time to answer them. It is an eye-opening discussion and I disagree with Delany, but I don’t think there’s any reason to stop writing glowing newspaper articles about his literary work.

        This is apropos and probably correct.

        http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/i-believe-dylan-farrow

        When people do truly awful things, or advocate for truly awful things it should be discussed publicly and especially when it touches on their public value.

        HP Lovecraft was a racist and that gets a mention. Lord Byron was an incester and that gets a mention. Doesn’t mean the Cthulu mythos isn’t a big accomplishment. Doesn’t mean the poetry isn’t impressive. I haven’t read any of Delany’s or Bradley’s works but I hear they’re great. Doesn’t mean they don’t have monstrous beliefs..

        Like

      2. spacefaringkitten Post author

        Well, there’s a lot to discuss in your huge huge comment, but I’m going to be terribly busy for a few days, so I’m just acknowledging that it’s there. I had to cut one paragraph to stay on the safe side, but your argument is understandable withouth it, I think.

        Like

      3. spacefaringkitten Post author

        A couple of posts down the page, JJ addressed your concerns about Rabid Puppies being the only ones who are willing to bring these issues up.

        That’s pretty much how I feel about it. A great number of people in the science fiction community have been vocal about the cases of Breen/Zimmer Bradley and Kramer, and they’ve been widely discussed in the mainstream media as well.

        I would also like to point out that Theodore “Vox Day” Beale and his Rabid Puppies are quite late to the party. They showed no interest at all until Beale announced his effort to “destroy the Hugo awards” this year. That looks like sheer exploitation of the victims of these horrible crimes to me.

        I don’t feel very comfortable defending Delany’s views that I don’t agree with in the first place (in fact, I agree with your opinion that NAMBLA’s objectives are dangerous), but I think you go a bit too far with him.

        To recap: What Delany says about NAMBLA is that he feels their newsletter, which he read in early 90s, discussed sexuality and children’s rights in an intelligent manner.

        Here’s a quote from the Shetterly interview:

        “Eighty percent of it was sensible analysis of the lack of children’s rights, especially when they were apprehended by the police in sexual situations. The way children were treated in these situations, immediately removed from their homes, placed in public institutions, given no counseling when they were most vulnerable and most in need of emotional support, was not a pretty picture.”

        I have never seen NAMBLA newsletter, so I have no idea if Delany’s description of it is accurate. I do understand how a gay person who came of age in the 50s would have sympathy for this kind of perspective, considering the widespread discrimination against homosexuals back then.

        As Milo Yiannopoulos writes in his foreword to SJWs Always Lie, “life and people are messy and complicated”. That is the only thing I agree with in the book, and I guess it’s pretty much what you were saying about Moira Greyland and the sympathy people should feel for her earlier.

        Sam Delany has also been pretty open about the fact that children are sexually arousing to him.

        Whoa! I have never seen him say anything to that effect. I understand that he has been open about many things relating to his sexuality, for example in his memoir The Motion of Light in Water (subtitled Sex and Science Fiction Writing in the East Village) which I haven’t read, but I have never heard of what you’re suggesting.

        My previous comment:

        As far as I know, NAMBLA’s objectives are “to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion”. I don’t support their objectives which I think are misguided and dangerous. However, murder or sexual assault don’t seem to have anything to do with them.

        Your reply:

        How is that not exactly the same statement as “NAMBLA’s objective is to legalize the rape of children?”

        As children can’t ever give any kind of consent all adult/child sex is rape. Without exception. I’ll grant you murder doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with their objectives but it follows that rape certainly does. What else does abolishing age of consent laws accomplish?

        The age of consent discussion is a hard one. NAMBLA tries to draw a distinction between actual sexual assault and “statutory rape”, and I think there is indeed some kind of a distinction there. An adult abusing a helpless child and an adult having sexual contact with a consenting 15-year-old are, in my mind, quite different things. The latter is a crime in San Fransisco and legal in Copenhagen, so the adult/child sex rule you presented does have it’s limitations. In some countries, the age of consent is 14. It’s always an arbitrary divide.

        On the other hand, stressing its arbitrariness (as NAMBLA and Delany do) leads us to a dangerous slippery slope and I do feel that lowering the bar too much or getting rid of it entirely would help predators, even if that were not their intent. You seem to believe that actually it is their intent, but that’s not what they are saying in public.

        If you stick your dick in a kid over and over again from the time he’s a child and then he keeps saying yes to it when he’s a teenager does that mean he’s giving consent? Or what if you find a kid who doesn’t have much and he’s really hungry or he likes your video games and he says it’s okay for you to touch him? Is that consent? What if you’re the only person that’s ever been nice to him or her and they’ll do anything to keep your attention? Is that consent?

        These are disturbing questions, and they are the reason I don’t support NAMBLA’s objectives. I guess that, legally speaking, the answer to your last two “Is that consent?” questions is: depending on how old they are and depending on where it’s taking place.

        Thanks for your comment, and for the discussion.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Doris V Sutherland (@DorVSutherland)

    “If that was true, I guess even Larry Correia (who kicked off his first Sad Puppies campaign actually in 2013) and Brad R. Torgersen are complicit, because they didn’t call their opponents out on it.”

    Indeed. Something that Eness and company are obscuring is that a significant portion of SSARR’s subject matter was not widely known even in SF citcles until 2014, when Deirdre Moen published Moira Greyland’s testimony and Will Shetterly interviewed Samuel R. Delany.

    Delany spoke approvingly of NAMBLA back in 1994, but I searched Google for any reference to this prior to 2014 and found very little – indicating that most people in SF fandom were simply unaware of his comments. The two most relevant hits were both on pro-paedophile sites, and for obvious reasons, most people would avoid going to such places.

    I also searched Vox Day’s blog for references to Bradley, Delany and Breen in any context before 2014. I found nothing.

    To be fair, you could perhaps make the argument that the SF community had failed to notice the warning signs in regards to Marion Zimmer Bradley. As far back as 1999, Stephen Goldin had been operating a web page with evidence that Bradley was complicit in Breen’s crimes; it wasn’t until Deirdre Moen gave him a signal-boost in 2014 that the SF world finally took notice. But if we are to blame every single SF author who did not comment on the matter until then, then it looks as though we would have include Vox Day in that number.

    Incidentally, here’s one of the first in-depth discussions of SSARR, which took place in December 2015:

    Some of the people criticising it include Christopher Daley, who helped to alert the media about Victor Salva, and Nancy Collins, who says “As for the Castalia House group, I did not see them on the ramparts during the Dragoncon Boycott.”

    Eness draws rather heavily on the work of past whistleblowers: Moen, Goldin, Shetterly, Daley, Collins. And yet, as far as I know, none of those people have endorsed his essay; at least two of them have actively criticised it. Kind of puts a hole in his “anyone who’s against me is pro-paedophile” narrative, doesn’t it…?

    Like

    Reply
  4. JJ

    Andrew: I observed a particular silence around this topic and the only people who seemed to speak to it were the Rabids.

    Then you have only been reading very selectively. People in fandom, over the years, have quite vocally condemned the actions of Breen and MZB and Ed Kramer. Fans worked very hard at trying to get DragonCon away from Kramer. And people in fandom have expressed their dismay about Delany’s comments in that interview with Shetterly. I can only presume that if you think the only people speaking about it were the Rabid Puppies, that you haven’t tried Googling.

    Andrew: I understand the objections with the article you raise, but I would ask that the focus of the article not be lost in the particulars. Anyone maligned, particularly John Scalzi, have ample public voice and power to defend themselves. The survivors have no similar power.

    I’m so sorry that you were abused. I can’t imagine what it was like to endure that, and to have to live with its aftereffects on an ongoing basis.

    But championing a piece which is full of lies and misrepresentations, simply because it also talks about child sexual abuse, is detrimental to your goal — which is to get people to think about and talk about the problem and figure out ways to address it.

    That sentence of yours I just quoted? It says “I don’t care who gets hurt by malicious lies, all that matters is that people talk about what I want them to talk about.” While I can understand that you feel it is a far lesser wrong than the one which was done to you, it is still wrong. And it is not a helpful approach for you to take.

    Because of all the falsehoods and libels in that piece, it is never going to achieve what you want. People will dismiss it wholesale because so much of it is wrong. Wouldn’t your cause be far better served by championing the people who are speaking about the subject in a rational manner, and publicizing the pieces that they publish?

    If you want people to take you seriously when you talk about this subject, then I encourage you to not try to use SSARR as your supporting material.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s