Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
GRRM Did Nothing Wrong at the 2020 Hugos
112 views
Skip to first unread message
Platypus
Mar 11, 2021, 1:21:33 PM3/11/21
to
This is a continuation of a conversation I was having with Butterbumps in the thread "Another Quasi-Update Update from GRRM (FEB 2021)".
I will not try to summarize Butterbump's position. My own position is that GRRM is in no way shape or form guilty of the charge that his Hugo performance was racist, sexist, transphobic, or bigoted in any way, shape or form. Nor, IMO, did GRRM have any duty whatsoever to appease the people slandering him by altering his Hugo performance to suit his critics (with one tiny exception I discuss below).
Of course, as consumers of entertainment, we all have the right to our opinions of personal taste. We all have a right to think that GRRM's performance was too long, too boring, not funny. We all have the right to say we did not enjoy his performance. Personally, I found it more enjoyable than most such performances, but that's neither here nor there. That's not what I mean when I say that GRRM "did nothing wrong". All I mean is that that the charges of racism (etc.) are false and unreasonable. And the charges of racism (etc.) are the entire basis for the shitstorm raised against him. No-one would care otherwise.
In my view, 100% if the blame for the hullabaloo surrounding the 2020 Hugos should be placed on the people making the false and unreasonable charges of racism, racist micoagressions and other assorted isms. To me is is entirely unreasonable to place ANY of the blame for such slanders on the victim. It gives the slanderers too much power.
I do concede, however, that innocent and accidental mistakes were made, in some very minor mispronunciations of certain people's names. GRRM reports that he made reasonable efforts to avoid mispronouncing people's names. I accept this explanation. The only reason anyone cares about this is because it is part of a campaign to charge GRRM with racism. The idea is that innocent and accidental mistakes are not really innocent and accidental mistakes, but really "racist micro-aggressions". This to me is blatant nonsense - and a clear display of GRRM's critics applying double-standards based on the GRRM's skin-color and the skin color of the the persons whose names were mispronounced.
I am aware that GRRM apologized for mispronouncing people's names. It was polite and proper for him to issue such an apology. It is just good manners, even when one is not MORALLY at fault in any way. This is how one reassures people that the accident really was an accident. Such apology is in no way evidence of MORAL guilt of any kind. It is simply the polite thing to do when an accident (even an unavoidable one) is committed. It would be pretty vile to use such an apology as evidence against him.
Without further ado, I now continue my conversation with Butterbumps. I have tried to focus the conversation on whether GRRM did anything wrong or is any way shape or form guilty or "racism" or "racist microagressions" or whatever. It is not 100% clear to me that Butterbumps entirely agrees with me, but that's up to him to say. He is certainly welcome to agree with me at any time.
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 3:02:22 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> Oh no, talking about lynch mobs isn't racist - what I was
> suggesting here was that in playing the victim, you are
> casting "us" as the racists.
That's not what I was saying with my "lynch mob" metaphor. As already explained, it had no connection to race. "Lynching" is an extrajudicial punishment by a mob. There is no "due process of law", and therefore such punishments tend to have little connection to real justice. "Cancel culture" is a sort of internet-driven online equivalent, except that it does not literally kill the victims (so far at least). Again, what I was suggesting with my lynch mob metaphor, is that mob justice is not real justice. And you responded by accusing me of using "racist imagery". You now confirm my suspicion that it is "one rule for thee but not for me". The only problem with my imagery was that (in your mind) the "wrong side" was using it.
The online lynch mob should be free to speak of course, but cannot be given any particular power or moral authority. The mere fact that the online lynch-mob went after GRRM is not evidence that GRRM did anything wrong in any way shape or form.
> You're casting yourself
> and the people you're championing as the oppressed, which
> is goddamn hilarious.
The person I am championing is GRRM. And I am saying he is NOT guilty of any form of racism (full blown or otherwise).
> You tried already with "progressives
> are the ones who want to bring back segregation," and
I was trying to discuss GRRM. GRRM is not a segregationist. He does not want to bring back segregation. None of the people attacking him honestly believe this. So there is no justice in smearing him as a segregationist by association (and hence a racist by association), merely because he said something nice about Campbell. Moreover, virtually no-one wants to bring back segregation. There is no threat here. Hence there seems to be no justice to a moral panic that seeks to smear and shame GRRM by association on the mere basis that he said a few nice things about Campbell.
However, after I said that no-one wants to bring back segregation, I realized it was not true, and was forced, for the sake of accuracy, to add in parenthesis "(except ironically some progressives)". Which is simply the truth these days. I did not accuse you or the anti-GRRM online mob of supporting "progressive" segregation. I honestly have no idea whether they do or not. But if the online lynch mobs are paranoid about the return of segregation, they are obviously going after the wrong guy.
> here you are doing the same with lynch mobs. Segregation
> is not inherently a racist term either, by the dumbfuck obtuse
> standards you cling to (in this debate, of all places). It just
> means separation of things (people in this case) into categories
> (race / colour in this case).
All I was trying to say was that you cannot justly smear GRRM with the charge of supporting segregation (and hence, being a racist) merely because he said some nice things about Campbell. And if you want to argue that supporting segregation is not necessarily racist, that only attenuates the already-tenuous smear even further.
> If I've understood correctly who you think My Crowd is - is it
> white, privileged, liberal virtue-signal-supporters of
> oppressed minorities? - then you're right.
I don't care what Your Crowd's skin color is (and never expressed any opinion on the point), and I don't think Your Crowd actually gives a damn about oppressed people (including oppressed minorities). But I'm happy to agree with you on the "virtue signaling" part.
> If that makes me a useful idiot ... actually that's
> another term you're wrongfully appropriating and
> turning around to cast yourself as victim. The useful
> idiots of fascism are - well, they're on the fascist side, see.
I'm casting GRRM as victim. He has been unjustly charged with racism (whether "full fledged" or otherwise). "Useful idiot" is merely my way of acknowledging that not all of the people trying to falsely smear GRRM as a "racist" are wicked liars -- some may be misguided victims of an ideology all too prevalent these days. I note again your preoccupation with the idea that Your Crowd owns certain terms, and that other people are not allowed do use them. Again, one rule for me and not for thee. Incidentally, I think the phrase "useful idiot" was popularized by Lenin, and he was referring to idiots useful to Communism, not fascism.
> And I know you're trying frantically to cast progressives
> as fascists, but it's unutterable, irretrievable bullshit
> from stem to stern.
I'm trying to cast the people calling GRRM a racist (or other kind of bigot) as wrong and unjust. I also think the standards they apply are oppressive and arbitrary. And I think they are a bunch of bullies. I did not use the word "fascists".
> > > I said there was plenty of blame
> > > to go around.
> >
> > And I don't agree. One can make reasonable criticisms of GRRM,
> > but nobody cares about those reasonable criticisms. They charged
> > him with racism, on a thousand petty excuses, and it was a false
> > charge. Since the charge of racism is false, the only honest
> > reasonable thing to do is tell the people making these false
> > charges to fuck off.
> >
> > Nobody really cares about GRRM innocently and accidentally
> > mispronouncing a few names. They care because they want to
> > charge him with racist microaggressions.
>
> No, see, you're still not listening. You're arguing against
> someone who isn't here.
Indeed I am. I am arguing with lots of people who are not here. My position is that GRRM is in no way to blame for the charges of racism and other assorted bigotries being made against him by lots of people who are not here. Any and all blame for the false charges of racism, transphobia or whatever are squarely to be placed on the people making these false charges. I've given you plenty of opportunity to agree with me, but I'm still not convinced you do.
> > This has nothing to do with the performance being perfect in any
> > way or in anyone's taste. You want me to join the pile on? Okay. I
> > think the eunuch joke was stupid. Not transphobic. Just stupid.
> > But nobody cares about that. That's not what the giant shitstorm
> > is about.
>
> See, this is exactly what I'm saying. You putting me
> in Team Lynch Mob for what I've said about Martin's
> Hugo presentation is as stupid as me putting you there
> for what you just said about his Oscar statue joke.
However, all I am saying is that the eunuch joke was not to my taste. It just wasn't funny to me (I'm sure other people laughed, though). I'm in no way suggesting that GRRM shares any blame for the false allegations of (in this case) transphobic bigotry being made against him. He doesn't. Ditto for the false charges of racism. To my mind, blaming GRRM for the false charges being made by some Unaccountable Online Mob gives far too much power to the Unaccountable Online Mob. Do we still agree? Because up til now, I think that was ambiguous at best (to put it mildly).
Surely it is not an alien concept that when you blame the victim, you are more-than-half on the side of the aggressor.
> If there are roots and undercurrents to these jokes
> and presentation choices, that's an issue, but it's not
> one we need to bang the ol' gavel in condemnation/
> judgement of.
Yeah, I'm not sure what that means, but it really sounds like you're holding back and want to place some blame on GRRM.
> People were upset by some of the undercurrents that
> were interpretable as being present.
They need to learn tolerance. Tolerance is a two way street. GRRM did nothing wrong, in the sense of doing anything that reasonable people could regard as offensive.
> And yes, some of the upset was performative. I
> am not comfortable putting *all* of the objections
> in that category.
Performative or not, they were wrong and unreasonable. Agreed? Or do you want to blame GRRM somehow.
> > I hope he does not feel horrible. I hope he realizes the people
> > throwing mud at him are idiots, and are not worth that kind of
> > emotional energy. I hope he realizes that these online terrorists
>
> Oh boy, terrorists now!
The ritual cancellation and humiliation of minor celebrities, which has now become routine, has the effect of making ordinary people afraid to speak their own mind. Control by fear. Terrorizing people.
> > do not represent anyone worthwhile.
>
> Well that's a shit attitude.
I am merely placing the blame on the aggressors while completely exonerating the victim, of these false charges.
> > You seem to feel the
> > attacks on him are valid and that he should feel horrible.
>
> Where did I say that please?
Feel free to agree with me that the attacks on him are not at all valid and he should not feel at all bad about this. I will be very happy to happily agree with you on that point.
> I do think there are reasons he was criticised ...
Yes. The reason he was criticised was because various people made false and unreasonable charges of racism and assorted bigotries against him. He was in no way to blame. Agreed?
> and reasons he apologised.
He apologised because it is normal and polite to apologize when one accidentally and unintentionally mispronounce someone's name. This is normal and polite even if one did one's best and are therefore not in any way at fault. One does this sort of thing to reassure people that it was indeed accidental and unintentional. Such polite apologies are not in any way shape or form evidence of moral guilt of any kind.
He explained that he made reasonable efforts under trying circumstances to avoid mispronouncing people's names. If you accept his explanation (and you say you did), then his apology cannot be taken as evidence of any kind of moral guilt. If you accept his explanation (and you say you did), then this was not even negligence. It was simply an accident.
> I don't think he deserves to be crucified (see? I can do it too!),
Nothing wrong with metaphors. He also does not deserve a flogging; or a slap on the wrist; or even a "time out". He does not deserve any punishment whatsoever, because he did nothing wrong.
> But you said it yourself, at a certain age the brain
> stiffens up and people stop progressing and taking
> on new ideas.
GRRM's advanced age is no evidence that GRRM did anything wrong. If anything, it supports his claim that he really did do his best and any minor mistakes were purely accidental.
[Re: Heinlein v Jemisin]
> Mm hm. Three Hugos in a row is more impressive than
> three Hugos in nine years. If you want to turn around
> and say that's an affirmative action hattrick, I won't bat an eyelid.
GRRM *DID* mention that Jemisin won 3 times in 3 years. Viewers are free to be as impressed by this as they please. GRRM expressed no opinion on whether it was more impressive than Heinlein's 4 hugos in 11 years. GRRM did nothing wrong.
GRRM mentioned that Heinlein was up for his 3rd Hugo in 1962, the 9th year of the Hugo's existence, in order to set the stage for an anecdote about the 1962 Hugos. It was not the greatest yarn in the world, but it was not terrible either. I'm guessing this yarn had never been told before at the Hugos and I'm guessing it will never be told again at the Hugos. These poor presenters have to think of new things to say every year. GRRM did nothing wrong.
That GRRM did not say exactly what you would have said is in no way a reasonable complaint. That will be true of every presenter in every year.
Certainly, his failure to say exactly what you would have said in no way justifies the false and malicious accusations of racism and bigotry being leveled against GRRM. GRRM did nothing wrong.
> > I was talking about freedom of speech and thought as
> > ideals of the enlightenment,
> *laugh* Okay. The spirit of the idea.
Yes, the ideals of the enlightenment. "Freedom of Speech" as an ideal, existed before that ideal was referenced in the U.S. Constitution. Permitting unaccountable online mobs to police what GRRM may or may not say, at the Hugos or online or anywhere else, is inconsistent with these ideals. Hence, GRRM is under no moral obligation to pander to or appease such mobs. I'm not sure if "*laugh*" signals your contempt for these ideals or not.
Such online harrassment may itself be legally protected speech to be sure. But if we believe in the free exchange of ideas, then we cannot give these online mobs too much power. We cannot agree that GRRM has any obligation to pander to or appealse their unreasonable demands. GRRM did nothing wrong.
> Well, what happened at and around the Hugos last year
> fulfilled *that* perfectly as well. So suck it up.
The bullies have a right to express their stupid opinions. But GRRM has no obligation to agree with them. Nor do you or I have to agree with them. Because, as I said, unaccountable online mobs have no inherent moral authority. And they are dead wrong in this case, as GRRM did nothing wrong.
> My Crowd, and by "My Crowd" I mean specifically just
> me, wants people to think about things before they open
> their yaps.
GRRM put considerable thought and effort into his presentation. He did nothing wrong.
> Yes. I want people to examine their thoughts, and recognise
> the processes going on underneath them, the prejudices they
> may have and the background and impacts those thoughts
> might have, and then temper their statements and actions
> accordingly. It's called being part of a cooperative fucking
> civilisation.
Does this have some kind of relevance to GRRM? Are you accusing him of doing something wrong? Should he pander to the mob that is slandering him? I'm only asking, because it is by no means clear what you are trying to say.
> Not with every thought and every statement, but just sometimes,
> occasionally, for the important stuff. If there's some inherent
> negative impact of just saying what you think, then maybe you
> need to look at the shit you're thinking.
Me? Or GRRM? Or both of us?
[re: your claim that GRRM should not have mentioned Campbell]
> > Name one sci fi story he [Campbell] published in the 40s that was tainted
> > by his legacy, and explain what you mean when you say it was
> > tainted by his legacy.
> All of them. All of them were tainted by it.
Breathtaking!
> All of them are now open to question, are they actually
> good, or are they just written by white folks with no competition?
If I enjoy them, they are good. I've been flipping through the old magazines (you can find them online) and enjoying quite a few of them. I do not care whether or not the starving artists who wrote them had white skin, because I am not a racist.
Note that in most of the stories, the race of the protagonist is irrelevant and even undeterminable. There are broadly 2 types of protagonist, human and alien. One story I read featured a protagonist described as having black hair and dark skin. The villain was described as having a thin nose and pale skin. The story was published under a pseudonym. The author's identity is known, and it turns out he was white. But it is hardly clear whether or how Campbell could have known that, just as it is hardly clear he would have cared if he did know.
> Good is a subjective matter (lack of comparable
> material notwithstanding). The lack of competition
> is objective fact.
By "lack of competition" I assume you mean "lack of competition from people of color". This does not appear to have been Campbell's fault in any way, as it appears that people of color were not writing sci fi at that time, and even if they were, Campbell had no way of distinguishing the skin color of the manuscripts submitted.
But even if Campbell was somehow to blame (for which there is no evidence for and plenty of evidence against), how can you possibly blame the poor starving artist who types up a manuscript and sends it in? If you have something against him because his skin was white, that makes you the racist, IMHO.
But I keep asking you to recommend modern stuff so I can try them and compare them. Just a short story. Is that hard? A short story.
BTW, I recently read Octavia Butler's "Blood Child". It sure was creepy. So if that was the goal, good job. It is however very difficult for me to say that I LIKED it, even as horror. And it is so different from the sort of stories that appeared in ASTOUNDING (which was not even a horror magazine per se) that it is almost a stretch to say it is the same genre.
[re. the alleged mispronunciations again, specifically Ms. Kuang's complaint]:
> Easier to pronounce by English-speaking westerners = anglicised.
By that standard "Kuang" and "Guong" are both anglicized, since most English-speakers can't decipher the pinyin character at all. And again, English-speaking westerners don't pronounce their "o"s and "a"s the same. The "o"s and "a"s of an upper class Brit are different from the "o"s and "a"s of a Bayonne native, and the broader vowels of an upper-class Brit would probably be closer to what Ms. Kuang prefers.
My own non-anglo surname has multiple different anglicized spellings. Even among those who spell it exactly the same as I do, many pronounce it differently. I don't even bother to correct them. As far as I am concerned, my surname has more-than-one acceptable pronunciation.
> > Secondly, I never said she should change her spelling to
> > Guong, or whatever. I merely said that this would be better
> > than falsely and maliciously charging people with racist
> > microaggressions whenever they mispronounce her
> > name.
> And that's absolute gross fuckwittery on your part.
Then, it necessarily follows that you think it preferable to falsely and maliciously accuse people of racist microaggressions. But again, it is not an either/or situation, as one remains perfectly free to do neither of these things. My own surname is an almost-unrecognizable anglicization of a non-Anglo surname. So, if your idea is that it is "absolute fuckwittery" to anglicize a surname, you are insulting my ancestors.
> You can be guilty of racist microaggressions without
> being a full-blown racist. This is the essence of seeking
> to improve oneself.
Are you insinuating that GRRM is guilty of racist micro-aggressions? Denying that you are calling him a "full blown racist" only seems to confirm that you are calling him a racist in some attenuated sense. Otherwise there would be no need for the qualification. Or am I misunderstanding?
No matter how much GRRM struggles to improve himself (and he is getting old), he is never going to understand how to pronounce every name he encounters, not even if he lives for 1000 years. Obviously he should try to pronounce people's names correctly (and he did). But mistakes will be made (and were). This is inevitable. Most people who know the name "Hermione" from "Harry Potter" would never suspect that there are people named Hermione who prefer radically different pronunciations. Chinese people mispronounce each other's names all the time, merely because the same pinyin character has many different pronunciations in the various regions of the vast nation of China. GRRM is guilty only of accidentally, unintentionally, and quite innocently, and despite reasonable efforts, committing a few very minor mispronunciations. As Emmanual Kant said "ought implies can", and by that standard, GRRM did nothing wrong.
I will not try to summarize Butterbump's position. My own position is that GRRM is in no way shape or form guilty of the charge that his Hugo performance was racist, sexist, transphobic, or bigoted in any way, shape or form. Nor, IMO, did GRRM have any duty whatsoever to appease the people slandering him by altering his Hugo performance to suit his critics (with one tiny exception I discuss below).
Of course, as consumers of entertainment, we all have the right to our opinions of personal taste. We all have a right to think that GRRM's performance was too long, too boring, not funny. We all have the right to say we did not enjoy his performance. Personally, I found it more enjoyable than most such performances, but that's neither here nor there. That's not what I mean when I say that GRRM "did nothing wrong". All I mean is that that the charges of racism (etc.) are false and unreasonable. And the charges of racism (etc.) are the entire basis for the shitstorm raised against him. No-one would care otherwise.
In my view, 100% if the blame for the hullabaloo surrounding the 2020 Hugos should be placed on the people making the false and unreasonable charges of racism, racist micoagressions and other assorted isms. To me is is entirely unreasonable to place ANY of the blame for such slanders on the victim. It gives the slanderers too much power.
I do concede, however, that innocent and accidental mistakes were made, in some very minor mispronunciations of certain people's names. GRRM reports that he made reasonable efforts to avoid mispronouncing people's names. I accept this explanation. The only reason anyone cares about this is because it is part of a campaign to charge GRRM with racism. The idea is that innocent and accidental mistakes are not really innocent and accidental mistakes, but really "racist micro-aggressions". This to me is blatant nonsense - and a clear display of GRRM's critics applying double-standards based on the GRRM's skin-color and the skin color of the the persons whose names were mispronounced.
I am aware that GRRM apologized for mispronouncing people's names. It was polite and proper for him to issue such an apology. It is just good manners, even when one is not MORALLY at fault in any way. This is how one reassures people that the accident really was an accident. Such apology is in no way evidence of MORAL guilt of any kind. It is simply the polite thing to do when an accident (even an unavoidable one) is committed. It would be pretty vile to use such an apology as evidence against him.
Without further ado, I now continue my conversation with Butterbumps. I have tried to focus the conversation on whether GRRM did anything wrong or is any way shape or form guilty or "racism" or "racist microagressions" or whatever. It is not 100% clear to me that Butterbumps entirely agrees with me, but that's up to him to say. He is certainly welcome to agree with me at any time.
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 3:02:22 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> Oh no, talking about lynch mobs isn't racist - what I was
> suggesting here was that in playing the victim, you are
> casting "us" as the racists.
That's not what I was saying with my "lynch mob" metaphor. As already explained, it had no connection to race. "Lynching" is an extrajudicial punishment by a mob. There is no "due process of law", and therefore such punishments tend to have little connection to real justice. "Cancel culture" is a sort of internet-driven online equivalent, except that it does not literally kill the victims (so far at least). Again, what I was suggesting with my lynch mob metaphor, is that mob justice is not real justice. And you responded by accusing me of using "racist imagery". You now confirm my suspicion that it is "one rule for thee but not for me". The only problem with my imagery was that (in your mind) the "wrong side" was using it.
The online lynch mob should be free to speak of course, but cannot be given any particular power or moral authority. The mere fact that the online lynch-mob went after GRRM is not evidence that GRRM did anything wrong in any way shape or form.
> You're casting yourself
> and the people you're championing as the oppressed, which
> is goddamn hilarious.
The person I am championing is GRRM. And I am saying he is NOT guilty of any form of racism (full blown or otherwise).
> You tried already with "progressives
> are the ones who want to bring back segregation," and
I was trying to discuss GRRM. GRRM is not a segregationist. He does not want to bring back segregation. None of the people attacking him honestly believe this. So there is no justice in smearing him as a segregationist by association (and hence a racist by association), merely because he said something nice about Campbell. Moreover, virtually no-one wants to bring back segregation. There is no threat here. Hence there seems to be no justice to a moral panic that seeks to smear and shame GRRM by association on the mere basis that he said a few nice things about Campbell.
However, after I said that no-one wants to bring back segregation, I realized it was not true, and was forced, for the sake of accuracy, to add in parenthesis "(except ironically some progressives)". Which is simply the truth these days. I did not accuse you or the anti-GRRM online mob of supporting "progressive" segregation. I honestly have no idea whether they do or not. But if the online lynch mobs are paranoid about the return of segregation, they are obviously going after the wrong guy.
> here you are doing the same with lynch mobs. Segregation
> is not inherently a racist term either, by the dumbfuck obtuse
> standards you cling to (in this debate, of all places). It just
> means separation of things (people in this case) into categories
> (race / colour in this case).
All I was trying to say was that you cannot justly smear GRRM with the charge of supporting segregation (and hence, being a racist) merely because he said some nice things about Campbell. And if you want to argue that supporting segregation is not necessarily racist, that only attenuates the already-tenuous smear even further.
> If I've understood correctly who you think My Crowd is - is it
> white, privileged, liberal virtue-signal-supporters of
> oppressed minorities? - then you're right.
I don't care what Your Crowd's skin color is (and never expressed any opinion on the point), and I don't think Your Crowd actually gives a damn about oppressed people (including oppressed minorities). But I'm happy to agree with you on the "virtue signaling" part.
> If that makes me a useful idiot ... actually that's
> another term you're wrongfully appropriating and
> turning around to cast yourself as victim. The useful
> idiots of fascism are - well, they're on the fascist side, see.
I'm casting GRRM as victim. He has been unjustly charged with racism (whether "full fledged" or otherwise). "Useful idiot" is merely my way of acknowledging that not all of the people trying to falsely smear GRRM as a "racist" are wicked liars -- some may be misguided victims of an ideology all too prevalent these days. I note again your preoccupation with the idea that Your Crowd owns certain terms, and that other people are not allowed do use them. Again, one rule for me and not for thee. Incidentally, I think the phrase "useful idiot" was popularized by Lenin, and he was referring to idiots useful to Communism, not fascism.
> And I know you're trying frantically to cast progressives
> as fascists, but it's unutterable, irretrievable bullshit
> from stem to stern.
I'm trying to cast the people calling GRRM a racist (or other kind of bigot) as wrong and unjust. I also think the standards they apply are oppressive and arbitrary. And I think they are a bunch of bullies. I did not use the word "fascists".
> > > I said there was plenty of blame
> > > to go around.
> >
> > And I don't agree. One can make reasonable criticisms of GRRM,
> > but nobody cares about those reasonable criticisms. They charged
> > him with racism, on a thousand petty excuses, and it was a false
> > charge. Since the charge of racism is false, the only honest
> > reasonable thing to do is tell the people making these false
> > charges to fuck off.
> >
> > Nobody really cares about GRRM innocently and accidentally
> > mispronouncing a few names. They care because they want to
> > charge him with racist microaggressions.
>
> No, see, you're still not listening. You're arguing against
> someone who isn't here.
Indeed I am. I am arguing with lots of people who are not here. My position is that GRRM is in no way to blame for the charges of racism and other assorted bigotries being made against him by lots of people who are not here. Any and all blame for the false charges of racism, transphobia or whatever are squarely to be placed on the people making these false charges. I've given you plenty of opportunity to agree with me, but I'm still not convinced you do.
> > This has nothing to do with the performance being perfect in any
> > way or in anyone's taste. You want me to join the pile on? Okay. I
> > think the eunuch joke was stupid. Not transphobic. Just stupid.
> > But nobody cares about that. That's not what the giant shitstorm
> > is about.
>
> See, this is exactly what I'm saying. You putting me
> in Team Lynch Mob for what I've said about Martin's
> Hugo presentation is as stupid as me putting you there
> for what you just said about his Oscar statue joke.
However, all I am saying is that the eunuch joke was not to my taste. It just wasn't funny to me (I'm sure other people laughed, though). I'm in no way suggesting that GRRM shares any blame for the false allegations of (in this case) transphobic bigotry being made against him. He doesn't. Ditto for the false charges of racism. To my mind, blaming GRRM for the false charges being made by some Unaccountable Online Mob gives far too much power to the Unaccountable Online Mob. Do we still agree? Because up til now, I think that was ambiguous at best (to put it mildly).
Surely it is not an alien concept that when you blame the victim, you are more-than-half on the side of the aggressor.
> If there are roots and undercurrents to these jokes
> and presentation choices, that's an issue, but it's not
> one we need to bang the ol' gavel in condemnation/
> judgement of.
Yeah, I'm not sure what that means, but it really sounds like you're holding back and want to place some blame on GRRM.
> People were upset by some of the undercurrents that
> were interpretable as being present.
They need to learn tolerance. Tolerance is a two way street. GRRM did nothing wrong, in the sense of doing anything that reasonable people could regard as offensive.
> And yes, some of the upset was performative. I
> am not comfortable putting *all* of the objections
> in that category.
Performative or not, they were wrong and unreasonable. Agreed? Or do you want to blame GRRM somehow.
> > I hope he does not feel horrible. I hope he realizes the people
> > throwing mud at him are idiots, and are not worth that kind of
> > emotional energy. I hope he realizes that these online terrorists
>
> Oh boy, terrorists now!
The ritual cancellation and humiliation of minor celebrities, which has now become routine, has the effect of making ordinary people afraid to speak their own mind. Control by fear. Terrorizing people.
> > do not represent anyone worthwhile.
>
> Well that's a shit attitude.
I am merely placing the blame on the aggressors while completely exonerating the victim, of these false charges.
> > You seem to feel the
> > attacks on him are valid and that he should feel horrible.
>
> Where did I say that please?
Feel free to agree with me that the attacks on him are not at all valid and he should not feel at all bad about this. I will be very happy to happily agree with you on that point.
> I do think there are reasons he was criticised ...
Yes. The reason he was criticised was because various people made false and unreasonable charges of racism and assorted bigotries against him. He was in no way to blame. Agreed?
> and reasons he apologised.
He apologised because it is normal and polite to apologize when one accidentally and unintentionally mispronounce someone's name. This is normal and polite even if one did one's best and are therefore not in any way at fault. One does this sort of thing to reassure people that it was indeed accidental and unintentional. Such polite apologies are not in any way shape or form evidence of moral guilt of any kind.
He explained that he made reasonable efforts under trying circumstances to avoid mispronouncing people's names. If you accept his explanation (and you say you did), then his apology cannot be taken as evidence of any kind of moral guilt. If you accept his explanation (and you say you did), then this was not even negligence. It was simply an accident.
> I don't think he deserves to be crucified (see? I can do it too!),
Nothing wrong with metaphors. He also does not deserve a flogging; or a slap on the wrist; or even a "time out". He does not deserve any punishment whatsoever, because he did nothing wrong.
> But you said it yourself, at a certain age the brain
> stiffens up and people stop progressing and taking
> on new ideas.
GRRM's advanced age is no evidence that GRRM did anything wrong. If anything, it supports his claim that he really did do his best and any minor mistakes were purely accidental.
[Re: Heinlein v Jemisin]
> Mm hm. Three Hugos in a row is more impressive than
> three Hugos in nine years. If you want to turn around
> and say that's an affirmative action hattrick, I won't bat an eyelid.
GRRM *DID* mention that Jemisin won 3 times in 3 years. Viewers are free to be as impressed by this as they please. GRRM expressed no opinion on whether it was more impressive than Heinlein's 4 hugos in 11 years. GRRM did nothing wrong.
GRRM mentioned that Heinlein was up for his 3rd Hugo in 1962, the 9th year of the Hugo's existence, in order to set the stage for an anecdote about the 1962 Hugos. It was not the greatest yarn in the world, but it was not terrible either. I'm guessing this yarn had never been told before at the Hugos and I'm guessing it will never be told again at the Hugos. These poor presenters have to think of new things to say every year. GRRM did nothing wrong.
That GRRM did not say exactly what you would have said is in no way a reasonable complaint. That will be true of every presenter in every year.
Certainly, his failure to say exactly what you would have said in no way justifies the false and malicious accusations of racism and bigotry being leveled against GRRM. GRRM did nothing wrong.
> > I was talking about freedom of speech and thought as
> > ideals of the enlightenment,
> *laugh* Okay. The spirit of the idea.
Yes, the ideals of the enlightenment. "Freedom of Speech" as an ideal, existed before that ideal was referenced in the U.S. Constitution. Permitting unaccountable online mobs to police what GRRM may or may not say, at the Hugos or online or anywhere else, is inconsistent with these ideals. Hence, GRRM is under no moral obligation to pander to or appease such mobs. I'm not sure if "*laugh*" signals your contempt for these ideals or not.
Such online harrassment may itself be legally protected speech to be sure. But if we believe in the free exchange of ideas, then we cannot give these online mobs too much power. We cannot agree that GRRM has any obligation to pander to or appealse their unreasonable demands. GRRM did nothing wrong.
> Well, what happened at and around the Hugos last year
> fulfilled *that* perfectly as well. So suck it up.
The bullies have a right to express their stupid opinions. But GRRM has no obligation to agree with them. Nor do you or I have to agree with them. Because, as I said, unaccountable online mobs have no inherent moral authority. And they are dead wrong in this case, as GRRM did nothing wrong.
> My Crowd, and by "My Crowd" I mean specifically just
> me, wants people to think about things before they open
> their yaps.
GRRM put considerable thought and effort into his presentation. He did nothing wrong.
> Yes. I want people to examine their thoughts, and recognise
> the processes going on underneath them, the prejudices they
> may have and the background and impacts those thoughts
> might have, and then temper their statements and actions
> accordingly. It's called being part of a cooperative fucking
> civilisation.
Does this have some kind of relevance to GRRM? Are you accusing him of doing something wrong? Should he pander to the mob that is slandering him? I'm only asking, because it is by no means clear what you are trying to say.
> Not with every thought and every statement, but just sometimes,
> occasionally, for the important stuff. If there's some inherent
> negative impact of just saying what you think, then maybe you
> need to look at the shit you're thinking.
Me? Or GRRM? Or both of us?
[re: your claim that GRRM should not have mentioned Campbell]
> > Name one sci fi story he [Campbell] published in the 40s that was tainted
> > by his legacy, and explain what you mean when you say it was
> > tainted by his legacy.
> All of them. All of them were tainted by it.
Breathtaking!
> All of them are now open to question, are they actually
> good, or are they just written by white folks with no competition?
If I enjoy them, they are good. I've been flipping through the old magazines (you can find them online) and enjoying quite a few of them. I do not care whether or not the starving artists who wrote them had white skin, because I am not a racist.
Note that in most of the stories, the race of the protagonist is irrelevant and even undeterminable. There are broadly 2 types of protagonist, human and alien. One story I read featured a protagonist described as having black hair and dark skin. The villain was described as having a thin nose and pale skin. The story was published under a pseudonym. The author's identity is known, and it turns out he was white. But it is hardly clear whether or how Campbell could have known that, just as it is hardly clear he would have cared if he did know.
> Good is a subjective matter (lack of comparable
> material notwithstanding). The lack of competition
> is objective fact.
By "lack of competition" I assume you mean "lack of competition from people of color". This does not appear to have been Campbell's fault in any way, as it appears that people of color were not writing sci fi at that time, and even if they were, Campbell had no way of distinguishing the skin color of the manuscripts submitted.
But even if Campbell was somehow to blame (for which there is no evidence for and plenty of evidence against), how can you possibly blame the poor starving artist who types up a manuscript and sends it in? If you have something against him because his skin was white, that makes you the racist, IMHO.
But I keep asking you to recommend modern stuff so I can try them and compare them. Just a short story. Is that hard? A short story.
BTW, I recently read Octavia Butler's "Blood Child". It sure was creepy. So if that was the goal, good job. It is however very difficult for me to say that I LIKED it, even as horror. And it is so different from the sort of stories that appeared in ASTOUNDING (which was not even a horror magazine per se) that it is almost a stretch to say it is the same genre.
[re. the alleged mispronunciations again, specifically Ms. Kuang's complaint]:
> Easier to pronounce by English-speaking westerners = anglicised.
By that standard "Kuang" and "Guong" are both anglicized, since most English-speakers can't decipher the pinyin character at all. And again, English-speaking westerners don't pronounce their "o"s and "a"s the same. The "o"s and "a"s of an upper class Brit are different from the "o"s and "a"s of a Bayonne native, and the broader vowels of an upper-class Brit would probably be closer to what Ms. Kuang prefers.
My own non-anglo surname has multiple different anglicized spellings. Even among those who spell it exactly the same as I do, many pronounce it differently. I don't even bother to correct them. As far as I am concerned, my surname has more-than-one acceptable pronunciation.
> > Secondly, I never said she should change her spelling to
> > Guong, or whatever. I merely said that this would be better
> > than falsely and maliciously charging people with racist
> > microaggressions whenever they mispronounce her
> > name.
> And that's absolute gross fuckwittery on your part.
Then, it necessarily follows that you think it preferable to falsely and maliciously accuse people of racist microaggressions. But again, it is not an either/or situation, as one remains perfectly free to do neither of these things. My own surname is an almost-unrecognizable anglicization of a non-Anglo surname. So, if your idea is that it is "absolute fuckwittery" to anglicize a surname, you are insulting my ancestors.
> You can be guilty of racist microaggressions without
> being a full-blown racist. This is the essence of seeking
> to improve oneself.
Are you insinuating that GRRM is guilty of racist micro-aggressions? Denying that you are calling him a "full blown racist" only seems to confirm that you are calling him a racist in some attenuated sense. Otherwise there would be no need for the qualification. Or am I misunderstanding?
No matter how much GRRM struggles to improve himself (and he is getting old), he is never going to understand how to pronounce every name he encounters, not even if he lives for 1000 years. Obviously he should try to pronounce people's names correctly (and he did). But mistakes will be made (and were). This is inevitable. Most people who know the name "Hermione" from "Harry Potter" would never suspect that there are people named Hermione who prefer radically different pronunciations. Chinese people mispronounce each other's names all the time, merely because the same pinyin character has many different pronunciations in the various regions of the vast nation of China. GRRM is guilty only of accidentally, unintentionally, and quite innocently, and despite reasonable efforts, committing a few very minor mispronunciations. As Emmanual Kant said "ought implies can", and by that standard, GRRM did nothing wrong.
Butterbumps@Home
Mar 12, 2021, 2:48:12 AM3/12/21
to
torstai 11. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 20.21.33 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:
>
> I will not try to summarize Butterbump's position. My own position is
> that GRRM is in no way shape or form guilty of the charge that his
> Hugo performance was racist, sexist, transphobic, or bigoted in any
> way, shape or form. Nor, IMO, did GRRM have any duty whatsoever
> to appease the people slandering him by altering his Hugo
> performance to suit his critics (with one tiny exception I discuss
> below).
But he did apologise. I'm glad he did.
>
> I will not try to summarize Butterbump's position. My own position is
> that GRRM is in no way shape or form guilty of the charge that his
> Hugo performance was racist, sexist, transphobic, or bigoted in any
> way, shape or form. Nor, IMO, did GRRM have any duty whatsoever
> to appease the people slandering him by altering his Hugo
> performance to suit his critics (with one tiny exception I discuss
> below).
> Of course, as consumers of entertainment, we all have the right
> to our opinions of personal taste.
> We all have a right to think that GRRM's performance was too long,
> too boring, not funny. We all have the right to say we did not enjoy
> his performance. Personally, I found it more enjoyable than most
> such performances, but that's neither here nor there. That's not
> what I mean when I say that GRRM "did nothing wrong". All I mean
> is that that the charges of racism (etc.) are false and
> unreasonable. And the charges of racism (etc.) are the entire
> basis for the shitstorm raised against him. No-one would care
> otherwise.
I think we both know where we stand on this. Or at least I know where you stand. You either can't grasp my position, or you're intentionally failing to grasp it, over and over again. So that's pointless. It's also not going to spoil my day.
> However, after I said that no-one wants to bring back segregation, I
> realized it was not true, and was forced, for the sake of accuracy, to
> add in parenthesis "(except ironically some progressives)". Which
> is simply the truth these days.
- B@w
--
Nope, that was it. Nothing else you said was worth responding to.
Platypus
Mar 12, 2021, 11:08:56 AM3/12/21
to
On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:48:12 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> But he did apologise. I'm glad he did.
He did not apologize for being a racist. And I hope he won't. But even if he does apologize for being a racist, my opinion will still be that GRRM is not a racist and did nothing wrong at the 2020 Hugos.
> But he did apologise. I'm glad he did.
> So it's opinion.
My strongly held opinion is that GRRM is not a racist and did nothing wrong at the 2020 Hugos. And again, I was distinguishing such "truth-value opinions" from mere "matters of taste" which are not really opinions at all. Saying "GRRM is a racist" is hardly the same thing as saying "Yawn this is boring let's change the channel".
> I think we both know where we stand on this. Or at least I know where you stand.
> You either can't grasp my position, or you're intentionally failing to
> grasp it, over and over again. So that's pointless. It's also not going
> to spoil my day.
> You realise, don't you, that there are actual neo-Nazis like
> Richard Spencer and his ilk who are campaigning for a sovereign
> white homeland? White supermacists and racists all over the
> world are literally pushing for segregation, and they're not doing
> it from the progressive left side. This dishonesty, and labelling it
> as "simply the truth", basically disqualifies you from any level of
> worthiness in my eyes.
My argument is that GRRM is not segregationist and cannot be smeared by association with segregationists merely because he said something nice about Campbell. There is ZERO connection between Spencer and GRRM. Spencer is nobody to GRRM. Spencer is nobody in the context of the argument I was making. Spencer has zero political power, not even compared to the progressive segregationists. GRRM is quite progressive (or he was, assuming the movement has not left him behind). If you wanted to smear GRRM as a segregationist, it would make far more sense to base the smear on his association with progressives. But even that would also be unjust. GRRM is not a segregationist. GRRM is not a racist. GRRM did nothing wrong at the 2020 Hugos.
I'd rather you try to stay on topic, assuming you respond at all. But if you prefer to make personal attacks, I can't stop you.
Platypus
Mar 13, 2021, 11:52:29 AM3/13/21
to
On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 2:48:12 AM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
[...]
Further on the subject of GRRM's apology (which you seem to think has some significance, though I am afraid to guess what you think that significance is): By curious coincidence GRRM just posted yesterday on his NAB to promote his scholarship, in cooperation with Odyssey Magazine, namely the "Miskatonic Scholarship" for a "promising new writer of Lovecraftian cosmic horror". Nowhere in his post does he warn the reader that Lovecraft was a racist, and that it is their duty as good progressives to spit in disgust whenever his name is mentioned. So, at least as far as some of the charges laid against GRRM at the Hugos are concerned, he seems to be entirely unrepentant.
But of course, as was already evident from the words of the apology themselves, he only apologized for innocently and accidentally mispronouncing people's names. A polite gesture to make clear that any mistakes were accidental. This polite gesture was not an admission of guilt for any other charge.
Butterbumps@Home
Mar 13, 2021, 1:13:03 PM3/13/21
to
lauantai 13. maaliskuuta 2021 klo 18.52.29 UTC+2 Platypus kirjoitti:
Yeah nah, this browbeating is boring.
I'll distill it down for you: Yes, I think Martin made some mistakes in his performance choices for the 2020 Hugos. As did others of the old guard. I'm not on board with hounding him out of the genre, but I'm not a big one for performative outrage of that kind anyway. I would have done it differently, but that's just one reader's / viewer's opinion. My main point was, the whole thing was pretty intense and I can understand if it left him upset and prone to introspection. That seems to be the case, and I'm glad if it is, but who really knows.
In short, yes I think he did it wrong. But I'm not angry or outraged.
You kept cutting and failing to address, sadly, most of the stuff I thought was interesting in our discussion, but you probably feel I did the same.
So it probably makes sense to end this here.
- B@h
--
But y'know, whatever.
Yeah nah, this browbeating is boring.
I'll distill it down for you: Yes, I think Martin made some mistakes in his performance choices for the 2020 Hugos. As did others of the old guard. I'm not on board with hounding him out of the genre, but I'm not a big one for performative outrage of that kind anyway. I would have done it differently, but that's just one reader's / viewer's opinion. My main point was, the whole thing was pretty intense and I can understand if it left him upset and prone to introspection. That seems to be the case, and I'm glad if it is, but who really knows.
In short, yes I think he did it wrong. But I'm not angry or outraged.
You kept cutting and failing to address, sadly, most of the stuff I thought was interesting in our discussion, but you probably feel I did the same.
So it probably makes sense to end this here.
- B@h
--
But y'know, whatever.
Platypus
Mar 13, 2021, 2:12:35 PM3/13/21
to
On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 1:13:03 PM UTC-5, Butterbumps@Home wrote:
> Yeah nah, this browbeating is boring.
How am I browbeating you? My post is about GRRM. You are not required to respond at all.
> Yeah nah, this browbeating is boring.
> I'll distill it down for you: Yes, I think Martin made some mistakes in his performance choices for the 2020 Hugos.
> You kept cutting and failing to address, sadly, most of
> the stuff I thought was interesting in our discussion, but you probably feel I did the same.
> So it probably makes sense to end this here.
0 new messages