Idios Kosmos wrote:


Isn't it? Everywhere else, Sanders and his remarks are denounced, lambasted, and decried. Here, people argue the defintion of racism, back away from saying Sanders was a bigot, and whine about copyrighted e-mail. It's bizarre!

You won't be able to do this because in order to get it you would have to read the preceeding two volumes, ADCP and Carnifex, and those would send you running to the little red's room to hurl. But I am doing something quite odd with Volume III, The Lotus Eaters, instituting what amounts to a wide swath of socialism with some elements of class warfare.

Well, _I_ think it's funny...

Tom, I will always read what you write. I gave my dad a copy of ASOD.

Why is the left so obsessed with the appearances of things rather than the substance, anyway?

Why you materialist you! You're only a hop skip and a jump away from dialectical or historical materialism.

It's a slippery slope.

However the tendency on your side of the political spectrum is to label any criticism of a culture as racist.
And now criticism of a religion or faith is also branded as racist..
The overall result is that the terms racist and racism simply cease to have any real meaning.

Jim, I'm a critic of many cultures. I am not a cultural relativist by any means. Let's get that straight right off the bat. I'm not an apologist for cultures that oppress women or gays or other minorities or deny human rights to their citizens. They're morally and socially and culturally backward. I do think that human rights and freedoms, and equality between men and women and between different ethnic groups is a moral advance over what went before. But I'm not going to stereotype all members of these cultures and call them bigoted epithets like "sheet heads" or other derogatory terms nor do I believe there is anything biologically inferior in the people in these cultures. I also try to understand the origins of some of these cultural practices in a broader historical and political context so that even as I condemn particular practices, I acknowledge that there are larger forces at work in their origins than just bad choice or moral failing.

I remain suspicious of those who criticize other cultures without displaying an understanding of the broader historical and political context. To me, very often those who voice such criticims do so out of hatred that is ignorant and thus, more akin to racism as we understand it than mere informed cultural critque.

One thing: It's amazing the absolute split of opinion between the posting here on the forum and elsewhere in the blogosphere. It's almost as if there's no shared reality..

"When it became declasse to comment negatively on "race", people just started talking about "culture" as a proxy for race. It was no longer a person's "race" that was to blame for their social position and status, but their "culture". The end result was the same -- to explain away the existence of social economic and political inequality by referring to the subordinate group's "culture" as the cause."

Always the automatic recourse to cant that attempts to automatically conflate and confuse two different categories. One might call the approach Orwellian, except that would overly dignify this threadbare tactic.

Yes, very often the "hegemonic discourse" does "privilege" the dominant culture and justify its "subjugation" of "the other" by constructing a false image that explains away the latter's social and political inequality as resulting from a "backward" culture. Sometimes, though, a subordinate group's culture -- its very real backwardness, for practical purposes -- simply explains, in and of, itself the subordinate group's lower social position and status. Let's cut to the chase with an example of such a culture that's both absolutely apropos to what's being contended here -- that is, it's a muslim subculture within a western dominant culture -- and interesting additionally because it implies some further possibilities -- fairly tragic ones -- in this race vs. culture argument. I posted this in another thread, but it's absolutely germane here.

Before anybody defaults into kneejerk insistence that this is only evil 'racist' Islamophobic propaganda, note that the second link is from a progressive American Muslim lamenting the situation described in the first link; while the third and fourth links are to a couple of scientific papers that are just a little of the voluminous scientific documentation of this phenomenon. Rather than posting any precis, I'm only posting the provocatives headers with links, because you really need to go through the material, especially the scientific papers ....

Minister warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece

All About Muslim Marriage: Thoughts on Cousin Marriage
http://muslimmarriages.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/thoughts-on-cousin-marriage/

A comparative review of Asian and British-born maternity patients in Bradford, 1974-8
KM Lumb, PJ Congdon and GT Lealman
http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/106

Trends in Infant Mortality
http://www.bradford.nhs.uk/ebm/BDIMC/Documents/Feb-05---IM-Trends-Simon-Padfield.pdf

In short, unless you're so deeply stupid as to believe that radically higher rates of Down syndrome, etc. (read the statistics, which are heartbreaking) have no real meaning, this would be pretty inarguably a real instance of a subordinate group with a genuinely "backward" subculture. I also said it's an interesting case in its implications for the race vs. culture argument. By that I assume either that none of us believe we're racists or else that we're not "declasse" enough to openly admit it if we do have such beliefs-- in other words, we all at least pay lip service to current science's position that no "race" of humans is on average substantially sub-par in its genetic endowment in comparison to the rest of the human race. Here, nevertheless, we see a cultural group whose "backwardness" has the feedback effect of degrading the genetic endowment of that group.

One thing: It's amazing the absolute split of opinion between the posting here on the forum and elsewhere in the blogosphere. It's almost as if there's no shared reality..

Clint Harris wrote:


Kratman is essentially right. Although some of the racial theorists apparently termed Arabs to be "dark whites" or of the "Mediterranean subgroup of Caucasians."

In linguistics and heredity it's generally fair to say they're Semitic. Semitics include the Maltese, Jews, several Ethiopian populations, and some Sudanese. Ethnolinguistically the main "white group" is Indo-European in origin, although there were non-IE societies in Europe and some countries that speak IE languages are not seen as "whites." The Basques, Estonians, Finns, Hungarians, and as mentioned the Maltese are not Indo-European. The Maltese are largely of Arabic origin, with some Italian and others. Those groups are usually seen as "white." The Hindi are Indo-European, but sometimes weren't seen as "white."

themasterknitter wrote:


That's right, sneer at my experiences when for the most part people here have been sympathetic and supportive of the bad things that have happened to you.

What I really have to applaud, Murph, is how you've built yourself a nifty scaffolding: if your writing fails, you will never, ever have to look to your skill level or the possibility that maybe the story just wasn't the right length or the magazine was full up on armor plated cars powered by giraffe bio-electricity or whatever. You will always be able to point an accusing finger at the PC Nazis. So if you tank, it will never be your fault.

Well done!

Marguerite, somewhere real safe, I'm sure.

Aren't Arabs technically Caucasians?

Tom Kratman wrote:


I should've said "all Arabs" rather than "Arabs in general." He is critical of Arabic culture, but he's been supportive of the more reformist Arabs.

The difference between race and culture is profound. At a bare minimum, one can change one's culture and, therefore, in refusing to change one can be held somewhat accountable for it. Race is simply there, unchosen and unchangeable.

When it became declasse to comment negatively on "race", people just started talking about "culture" as a proxy for race. It was no longer a person's "race" that was to blame for their social position and status, but their "culture". The end result was the same -- to explain away the existence of social economic and political inequality by referring to the subordinate group's "culture" as the cause. Funny how the people using "culture" were the same people who used to use "race" to legitimate inequality. This shift in terminology is in some way more punitive, since culture is to a certain extent "chosen" and thus, one can blame the person with an inferior culture for "choosing" it or refusing to give it up for the superior culture. You know the argument -- "those people don't value hard work" or "those people lack quality X that our people have", etc. "Those people" of course are thus fully morally to blame for their inferiority and social/economic/political inequality and the superior "culture" is absolved of any responsibility.

Now, of course, with our advances in genetic science, the question of "race" is rearing its ugly head and there is a concerted effort to uncover the genome's secrets about "race" and "sexual orientation" and "gender", I suppose in one last valiant attempt to prove that white European heterosexual men are, after all, the master race. That's been a favorite topic of science for the past two centuries, and it has returned to the issue with renewed vigor.

Well, there is some good news out of this horrible thread.

Now, for what may be the first time, we have a substantial segment of the SF community coming down against religious bigotry. And they're on the record.

Oh, please Tom--do you honestly think the term was meant to be purely descriptive or as a compliment? I mean, really!

tobias s buckell wrote:


I have to give her kudos for that then. I think many in the SF world are a bit uneven on Christianity versus religions that are, in essence, "exotic" for them.

I don't want to risk my friendship with him, but I'm going to have to agree he shouldn't have used "sheet heads." When I talk to him it became pretty clear he doesn't mean Arabs in general with the term and it's not a racial statement, but I can see how it was unwise to use it in this case.

Any of you twits even been to the Middle East?

"You seem bent on classifying membership of a religion- something which requires an actual conscious act and race which is simply a matter of a few strands of DNA as the same.
They are not.
Would I use the term sheet heads? No, not because it is racist- it is not, but because I am by nature a polite sort of chap."

Jim, you're splitting hairs. The fact is, Sanders made bigoted, nasty remarks. Are you defending this? Is it OKAY to make these remarks? You seem so bent on claiming Sanders's remarks aren't racism that you come across as supporting Sanders.

It is like the Inquisition in here.

Yeah, because I'm totally torturing you.

I just wanted a quick yes or no question to figure out why you'd defend the use of a racial epithet. Everytime I've confronted the use of racial epithets the person in question has always split hairs, argued 'what is race' or used any of the usual steps for how to shut down a discussion on race. In fact, I've yet to meet someone who's owned up to their own bigotry when its been pointed out, they always dissemble.

So if you're all against epithets, and are not racists, why are you arguing for 'sheet heads' being acceptable language in a business letter, no matter what its application is? Towel head and such variants are used by racists, for racial epithets. End of story.

Actually, Tom mostly revels in fucking with the left. The wife is a [not insignificant] side benefit.

Tom likes to imagine he's fucking with the left. So we let him have his delusions.

So after saying they don't support racial epithets, it turns out they do. They just want it reclassified.

I'm glad to hear from all the Asimov's readers here who emailed me, btw, that these chaps are not particularly loved or welcome here and that ethnic slurs are not welcome.

Tobias,
"Racism typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, even though anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic differences."

What an interesting idea. The very act of criticising say a religious group racialises them and makes the criticism racist.

I think we have gone past Orwell here and into the realms of Kafka- no on second thoughts make that Monty Python.

Sue also wrote:

That was under the section "Republicans and creationism".

I'm eager to see the liberal community begin to address its religious bigotry problem.

I want to add that I'm an equal opportunity insult hurler. I'll insult Muslims who believe God created the Earth 10,000 years ago, or any other religion or religious person. I don't discriminate in my insults of religion.

Tobias, you'll never get anywhere with those three, Jim, Tom and Murph, but for different reasons. Jim at least said he didn't approve of racial epithets, but will insist that race and religion are not the same thing, despite the fact that for many (not necessarily Jim), Islam-bashing is a proxy for racism: a more acceptable way to express racist sentiments without being tarred with a racist brush. Tom, as usual, revels in being able to claim he married a women with dark skin and thus, he can't be a racist, nope. I won't even thouch that one. And Murph will just claim you are a racist for even suggesting that whites might be racist.

Still, I think keeping up the discussion, despite the intractable nature of the players' views, is like theatre. It's good to run these fellows through their paces; open their mouths so people can take a good look at their teeth.

Tobias, you'll never get anywhere with those three, Jim, Tom and Murph, but for different reasons. Jim at least said he didn't approve of racial epithets, but will insist that race and religion are not the same thing, despite the fact that for many (not necessarily Jim), Islam-bashing is a proxy for racism: a more acceptable way to express racist sentiments without being tarred with a racist brush. Tom, as usual, revels in being able to claim he married a women with dark skin and thus, he can't be a racist, nope. I won't even thouch that one. And Murph will just claim you are a racist for even suggesting that whites might be racist.

Still, I think keeping up the discussion, despite the intractable nature of the players' views, is like theatre. It's good to run these fellows through their paces; open their mouths so people can take a good look at their teeth.

It is like the Inquisition in here.

Yeah, because I'm totally torturing you.

I just wanted a quick yes or no question to figure out why you'd defend the use of a racial epithet. Everytime I've confronted the use of racial epithets the person in question has always split hairs, argued 'what is race' or used any of the usual steps for how to shut down a discussion on race. In fact, I've yet to meet someone who's owned up to their own bigotry when its been pointed out, they always dissemble.

So if you're all against epithets, and are not racists, why are you arguing for 'sheet heads' being acceptable language in a business letter, no matter what its application is? Towel head and such variants are used by racists, for racial epithets. End of story.

So Tom, when did you last beat your wife?

I guess Tobias doesn't understand the type of question he is asking. Nor does he acknowledge any effort to clarify.

It is like the Inquisition in here.

So Tobias, do you hate rednecks?

So if you don't support racial epithets, why are you supporting the use of one in this case?

So Jim, using epithets is okay? Yes or no?

Yeah, guess it is not politically correct to question a religion where it is perfectly acceptable to chuck airplanes at skyscrapers and strap bombs to your chest so you can go blow up a pizza parlor and find yourself in paradise.

Any of you twits even been to the Middle East?

themasterknitter wrote:


Check your spelling. That should be "Muthafucka."

No. The questions are what would he be like if he didn't feed every demon he had and what he'll become if he continues to feed those demons.

I

WPreston wrote:


Yeah, Billy, I saw your "action." As we say in the Army, "Motherfucka please."

Sam, we've already seen an example of politically correct control run amok over at Strange Horizons. They have submission guidelines (I call them "The List of Thou Shalt Nots")which run 19 pages if you print them out. Since many consider SH the future of SF it is worth taking a look.

The guidelines are extremely restrictive, they are politically correct and they bar many topics worth examining. Case in point, my first story sale, Tearing Down Tuesday, which placed 4th in the IZ 2007Readers Poll and picked up an Honorable Mention in Gardner's YBSF. It focus on child abuse but according to the endless list, that is Verbotten. Can't write about it. No go. In fact, TDT violates half the Thou Shalt Not on that list.

How long will it be before I have someone like you are Tempest saying, "Murph, you didn't include enough of X, Y and Z?"

I'd aruge that situation is already extant, Sammy. Has been for quite some time. It won't be long before self appointed PC Nazis roam the internet engaging in a reign of intellectual terrorism that eventually constrains the creative freedom of every writer down to a point of non existence.

That is how I see it, Sam. I'll fight it. I'll go to war over it. I'll make everyone's life miserable over it and I will not shut up over it.

Because if I do, then it'll get to the point where no one will be able to write a story like Tearing Down Tuesday. And while Jed Hartman squirms when child abuse is examined, I don't. Maybe it needs more coverage.

themasterknitter wrote:


For the rational among you: As usual, the "historian" fails to check his facts.

Byron Bailey wrote:


No, as I suggested, the question is what would he be like if he couldn't blow off steam, presumably here? It's also a comparative thing. You use calm as an absolute, when the real measure is "relatively calm." We have his own words that he'd be much worse if he kept it all in.

Well said, Colonel. Tip O Da Hat To Ya.

My Name is Steven Francis Murphy, son of Mogh . . . no, wrong speech. Son of James Edward and Roslyn Karen Murphy. I am an Unrepentant Veteran of the Persian Gulf War with four years service in the United States Army and some first hand experience with our "sheet head" enemies.

I stand against the bastards who'd chuck airplanes into skyscrapers and strap bombs to their chests.

I stand against those who apologize for such bastards and say we had it coming. Who I will note, are almost always Liberals and Feminazis.

I stand against these same bastards who think fucking nine year olds is culturally acceptable.

I stand against these same bastards who put women in burkas and deprive them of even the bare minimum of human rights.

I stand against those who make baseless accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia, especially when lodged against someone like Gardner Dozois.

And I am here to say that I have an e-mail buffer filled with like minded responses which I, unlike Luke, will keep to myself.

Never Give Up! Never Surrender!

No. The questions are what would he be like if he didn't feed every demon he had and what he'll become if he continues to feed those demons.

I

If you ever drive on the autobahn, and live in Germany for a bit, you may come to see that the aggression of the former is utterly necessary to the placidity of the latter. Not to mention keeping them from invading Poland an France.

If such is the case, what you're doing is channeling that agression into a socially accepted form. It's what a lot of people do. It's kind of what Murph is doing by taking it out here rather than shooting someone although in his case, it's not that socially acceptable. Still, the more you're agressive on the forum, the easier it becomes to be aggressive on the forum. The more agrresive you are on the autobahn, the easier it becomes to be agressive on the autobahn. According to the pressure cooker theory of the mind, considering all of the steam he's let off over the years, Murph should be a very calm person now. What do you think? Is he? Or has his rage as displayed on this forum increased over the years?

My name is Catherine Shaffer and I stand against racism, sexism, bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination. I deplore the use of language that demeans human beings on the basis of their appearance, sex, physical characteristics, religion, handicap, sexual orientation, or other qualities bestowed by nature or heritage. I find intolerable the use of slurs such as "sheet head" and "feminazi" (which are inappropriate in any context) such as have been used here and elsewhere on the internet. As well, I expect Mr. Sanders, as editor of Helix, and a representative of that organization to be held accountable for his use of inappropriate language <i>no matter how this incident came to light.</i> As a writer of science fiction, I would like to affirm that the overwhelming majority of my peers share a heartfelt belief in the equal dignity of all human beings.

WPreston wrote:


I'm sorry, but this is one of the most gagworthy statements I've read here.

September 11 was the biggest terrorist event in history. It equalled the combined death toll from terrorism that Israel, Lebanon, and Britain experienced from 1968 to 2006.

And "installed the dictators", please. Do you know anything about the history of Saudi Arabia or Egypt? We weren't attacked by Guatemalans or even Iranians. We certainly weren't attacked by people who believe in democracy.

Are you from Ontario or something?

Yeah,Billy isn't going to do anything about Tempest and her attack on Gardner either. Why am I not surprised?

And nothing out of you about the baseless accusations either, Sammy? Do you think Gardner's a racist? Where is your proof? Or are you going to let Tempest's slander slide on by?

I wake up pissed every day and I'll say that it ain't so bad. Of course the reason is because the politically correct fascists won't be happy until we are popping along at the proper goose stepping mental interval.

I figure if this goes on I'll have some Commisar standing over my shoulder going, "No, no, Mister Murphy. You are going to need at least two more homosexuals, one African American and an accepted kid fucker because we need more stories about The Future of Sex as portrayed in a positive light."

"Yes, Commisar Hartman."

Jesus, you people are supposed to be fucking writers. Why don't you write your own shit however the fuck you want to write it and leave those of us that are selling and getting published the fuck alone?

Dave, I appreciate that you had some sort of political awakening (though it strikes me as horribly naive, given that, awful as the events of 9/11 were, they were not in any way a watershed in the history of terrorist acts nor in people reacting in broadly violent ways against the powers that had installed dictators in their region of the world; Limbaugh was well placed to take advantage of such naivete, I suppose, much as our leaders were well positioned to cynically leverage it to their own seeming advantage). This doesn't make Limbaugh a decent or thoughtful person.

Dave_truesdale wrote:


And then there's your standard attack based on falsehood. I enjoyed Al Franken quite a lot . . . when I was a teenager and he was on Saturday Night Live. End of story.

Dave_truesdale wrote:


Agreed, it isn't, but there's so much bigotry around, it's hard for many of us to turn our heads. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom--especially freedoms so recently won and not universally respected. I think you mischaracterize her (though I agree she addressed herself rather poorly to the issue of Gardner's statements), but so be it. As for my understanding of how you intended your statements, I'm sorry if I mistook you. It struck me as odd that you aimed at her--rather than any of the other authors and bloggers saying the same thing . . . as perhaps they didn't fit the definition Limbaugh would give of the kind of person who's decrying bigotry.

Somehow, though, I'm still pissed. Why is that?

themasterknitter wrote:


Umm, I've not said nary a thing that I either do not believe to be true or in the case of Strange Horizons, verifiable either by their submissions guidelines (19 pages, people, you'd think it was an Army manual on how to beat off) or by their own published stats.

And why don't you start with, "I said something to her?"

Cuz I do believe this'll get filed under "Exempt," if it is allowed to.

I'm sorry. Not going to let an attack on Gardner (and that is what it is, a reputation breaking attack because Gardner so much as dared to disagree with the K. Tempest Bradford, how dare he, anyway?) slide in the least.

Oh fuck no.

I already said something on her blog about it, thank you.

And considering all the time I've been upset over the baseless slander posted here--what the fuck good does it do, anyway?

Samantha Henderson wrote:


And nothing out of you about the baseless accusations either, Sammy? Do you think Gardner's a racist? Where is your proof? Or are you going to let Tempest's slander slide on by?

I wake up pissed every day and I'll say that it ain't so bad. Of course the reason is because the politically correct fascists won't be happy until we are popping along at the proper goose stepping mental interval.

I figure if this goes on I'll have some Commisar standing over my shoulder going, "No, no, Mister Murphy. You are going to need at least two more homosexuals, one African American and an accepted kid fucker because we need more stories about The Future of Sex as portrayed in a positive light."

"Yes, Commisar Hartman."

Jesus, you people are supposed to be fucking writers. Why don't you write your own shit however the fuck you want to write it and leave those of us that are selling and getting published the fuck alone?

Dave_truesdale wrote:


I'm certain you wouldn't like it very much. But I doubt if you're in a position where you have to deal with periodic onslaughts of racist bile.

Marguerite R. wrote:


She is accusing Gardner Dozois of improper conduct with his rejection letters, Marguerite (yet she says nary a word about Shelia who had virtually the SAME opinion, go figure, which is sexist on her part in the extreme). Might want to go read that blog entry and ask Tempest to pop along with some proof to back up her baseless slander.

Or are you going to be a good ally and do nothing about baseless slander?

Dave_truesdale wrote:


Gracious, Marguerite, I think you're being dismissed.

Marian wrote:



But we seem to have no problem jumping up and down like a troop of chimps every time other people here get a little exercised. I know Tempest; she's not an idiot.

People have assured me that my internet celebrity will be very short-lived and besides, its out someplace right now. But if I notch up enough rejections, which I probably will, who knows?

I suppose you slobber all over Al Franken.

Where in blazes did I say anything about color of any sort? I don't care if what's her face is green with yellow stripes, she'd still call a blade of grass racist if it suited her purpose. I'd sure hate to be someone who had to wake up every day and be pissed off at everything, and be looking under every nook and cranny for a sexist, homophobe, or racist. That's no way to live.

Go drink some herbal tea, meditate or whatever, stroke your cat, and soak your psyche in some good old fashioned feminazi literature. I'm sure you'll feel much better. Me, I'm gonna have the ballgame on in the background while I sip a beer and read the latest Analog.

Now, run on along to your little socialist blogmates and gossip all you want about this evil, sexist, racist, and homophobic white guy. It's *the* thing to do among your little support group, don't ya know, and will get you a few more points with the in crowd.

Blah. Leave me alone.

I'd sure hate to be someone who had to wake up every day and be pissed off at everything, and be looking under every nook and cranny for a sexist, homophobe, or racist. That's no way to live.

Dave_truesdale wrote:


Sir, I cannot believe you said that.

Racists, sexists, and homophobes--Is she wrong to say so? I think not.

Wow is right, for a variety of reasons, Murph. Tempest is angry at everyone and everything that doesn't fit her narrow worldview. And everyone who disagrees with her on even the tiniest little thing she either labels (nay, screams is) a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe; and yet she labels this forum as full of racists, sexists, and homophobes, and doesn't see how William can stand it over here. Talk about the utter arrogance and self-righteousness of her non-stop rants! She'd find sexism or racism in a blade of grass, for crying out loud. Rush was right after all, about her sort. I didn't use to think so, but I've seen her type prove Rush right time after time after time. Whew.

Someone needs an emergency bitch-suction operation.
edited by Dave_truesdale on 7/9/2008

The actionable cause would be the damage to the reputation of the editor, the damage to the business that Helix is involved in, and the potential future profits either of them might make should they seek employment or publication in a profit-making venture anywhere else in the future or should the editor or Helix turn to profit-making publication or other profit-making businesses.

It does not matter that there might not be any money in a suit right now. The suit can so damage a defendant's future profit potential (which can be attached as a judgement - Robert Asprin had his future profits on sales of his work attached by the IRS as a judgement in regards to a tax dispute as I recall) that he is essentially barred from pursuing a future as a writer (Asprin went into a partnership with his partner in order to dodge the IRS's attachment of all the profits on all his future works so at least he and his partner would get something out of his work). The result of the suit can ruin the writer's reputation, the writer's future in writing, and the writer's capability of making a living doing what he does - writing.

The argument may seem flimsy, but so is Barbara Bauer's suit against Absolute Write/Writer Beware, P&E, and a great many others. If, and again let me reiterate that I sincerely hope it does not happen, Luke were to be sued he could be tied up in court and legal maneuvering for years to come, his bank acoounts frozen, his future income confiscated or held for judgement, and his and his fmily's entire future ruined.

That's a nightmare scenario, but it's not absolutely impossible nor even improbable in this day and age.

(I've been involved in a business bankruptcy before and worked some of our attorney's bills off helping him out in his office as the RI - it's unbelievable what can happen when real finances and futures are involved in a case and the court doesn't care - the court has to listen and make decisions)

Question. Does Tempestt have any real life power, i.e. is she the editor of a magazine or is she simply an active blogger? I'm agreeing completely with the idea that spending this much time and energy on a tempest in a tea pot is a ridiculous waste of energy. I mean there will always be idiots and bigots and fanatics out there blogging their little hearts out. Why give them power and publicity? Why seek them out, quote them and build them up? I'm with Clint.

Every young writer wants primarily to be read, no? So maybe Luke could use his new fame to post his story on his blog. I'm sure he will have many readers! And that could give a perspective to Saunders' letter.

Okay, this is just getting stupid. Calling for a boycott of Helix is just part of this whole political correctness witchunt going on. I hope somebody publishes Luke's story, so people can actually see the other side of it. At the very least become better informed before they start trying to wreck markets just because they can. Sure, Sanders' letter seems very narrow-minded, but I would contest no more narrow than some of Tempest's posts can read. Same as Sanders. I like both of them, in their way. I think they both are funny, intelligent, and talented people, but sometimes, I think people's schtick can really cloud our judgement for who they are.

People might think I'm a funny guy in real life, a real great guy to have at parties. Little do they know that I'm a socially inept curmudgeon who breaks into a cold sweat whenever he has to order a frosty at Wendy's because talking to people face to face can be so damned hard. I'm also kind of a prick sometimes too. I have my opinions, which surprisingly enough from all the words and posts I pump into this forum, I don't share in public or with polite company. As do we all!

Many writers on these boards have debated Islam, fascism, politics, race, etc. Should they be banned, should their works be boycotted? If we could build a time machine would we go back and assassinate George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Don Rickles, Richard Pryor, Dennis Miller, etc. because we didn't agree with their politics or the "civil" delivery of their views? Shit, there wouldnt' be a lot of funny in this world. We'd still be telling the same chicken crossing the road joke without them.

Often, thought makes people uncomfortable. It's the truth. And whether or not you agree with what someone says is no reason to boycott them for saying it. Everyone is bitching about the SIFA law being passed, but what about the 1st Amendment? Is freedom of speech only important when you agree with what is being said? What about "What you say might make me want to kill you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it?"

I think calling people by derogatory labels is in poor taste and doesn't reflect well on someone's intelligence, but convincing others to shut them down through persuasion in a nasty move. It's mob rule. If you don't like it, voice your opinions. Give your argument, but demanding boycott, protesting funerals, impeachment, and lynchings and burning churches and banning books for superfluous reasons, just because you can are bully tactics.

If Luke wants to embarass himself by posting letters, that's his problem. If Sanders wants to portray himself as a bigot, that's his deal. Lots of people are. I'd say 99% of us hold some sort of prejudice. The rest are in comas.

So, I'm asking people to get off the fucking bandwagon and stop making this their fight. Why don't you go volunteer at a soup kitchen or donate some time to a charity or write a letter to a senator or something that might make a difference. Read to some old people or kids with cancer in the hospital. Tutor an inner city kid who needs help in school. But THIS isn't going to change a goddamn thing. This isn't marching with Dr. King. This isn't starting a labor union. This isn't stopping police brutality. This is just flexing nuts.

The people actually involved have taken responsibility for their actions, which in this day and age is RARE. Yes, it might be infuriating, but is it your fight? Is this the hill you want to die on?

I have an idea, but don't know if it is a wise one? I post it for what it's worth.

Every young writer wants primarily to be read, no? So maybe Luke could use his new fame to post his story on his blog. I'm sure he will have many readers! And that could give a perspective to Saunders' letter.

Maybe he should ask Saunders before posting it?

SFM, And right there is the grounds for a lawsuit IMO. Remember, there's always a lawyer somewhere who's willing to file a suit over anything and everything. Heck, that's how the term "ambulance chaser" originated.

I think I understand the "damage to reputation" aspects and why that might not be actionable, but actual potential material damage to future profitable potential is not damage to one's reputation (it is, in a roundabout way, I suppose), it's real potential damage and I think that may be actionable.

What I'm saying here is that I think a suit by both Mr Sanders and Helix could fly in that their reputation has not only been damaged (something they probably cannot take action against), but also their future potential for profitable employment and sales of their publication have been, if not seriously damaged, at least seriously endangered.

People sue for less cause than that these days (look at Barbara Bauer and her suit against half the SF community).

I seriously hope you are not sued, but I'm thinking you might be missing a few legitimate points in all this.

I think I understand the "damage to reputation" aspects and why that might not be actionable, but actual potential material damage to future profitable potential is not damage to one's reputation (it is, in a roundabout way, I suppose), it's real potential damage and I think that may be actionable.

What I'm saying here is that I think a suit by both Mr Sanders and Helix could fly in that their reputation has not only been damaged (something they probably cannot take action against), but also their future potential for profitable employment and sales of their publication have been, if not seriously damaged, at least seriously endangered.

People sue for less cause than that these days (look at Barbara Bauer and her suit against half the SF community).

I seriously hope you are not sued, but I'm thinking you might be missing a few legitimate points in all this.

Been watching this controversy here and elsewhere and I have some questions for Luke (whom I don't know as anything more than a poster here). I have no wish to start or participate in a flamewar, but the following points and question appear to me to be legitimate from any legal standpoint.

You indicate above that Mr Sanders is an editor for the magazine Helix from whom you received a particularly objectionable rejection. You subsequently posted the emailed rejection to a public forum.

You state that you do not believe your posting of the email is actionable due to the expense of interstate suits and the fact that the email itself is not, in any conceivable way, a saleable item from which Mr Sanders can expect to make any profit from in any fasion.

However, in that Mr Sanders is ostensibly the public face of Helix as one of that publication's editors, is it not then logical to assume that your publicly posting of the objectionable rejection email has materially damaged Mr Sanders character, professional standing, and material worth in the eyes of the general public, and that, as he is ostensibly the public face of Helix, that your posting of this email has materially damaged the publication's public face, the manner in which they will be perceived by the general public in the future, their potential future sales, their potential future submissions, and their potential material profit from all of the above?

IMO, that's not only a legitimate question, but an actionable consequence of the potential of this entire brehaha's outcome.

What about the autobahn needs explained?

I will say this, I had a deep anger issues a few years ago, so bad that I went psycho on an editor. Anger and rage were eating up my life. I managed to get a hold of the anger by basically not allowing myself to feel anger for a year or so. Every time I'd feel the rage begin to burn (and it would constantly at first), I'd focus my mind on something else, something pleasant like the blue of the sky washing over me. In time, because I stopped reinforcing the anger, it left. Then I brought it back into my life in moderation. I think anger can be a great tool in it's proper place. The world is such a place that a little righteous anger is called for. When anger stops becoming a tool and you've become the tool, though, it's bad.

...
EXITING LAWYER MODE

Since Sanders and I seem to be cool at this point, the above isn’t meant to mock or malign him in any way, merely to state my own personal understanding of the legal issues for anyone who may be interested and/or concerned. In all seriousness, I welcome people to prove me wrong or misinformed, if only to cover my own ass.

Someone needs an emergency bitch-suction operation.
edited by Dave_truesdale on 7/9/2008

It's a close question, you know, whether expressing oneself or containing oneself is more likely to lead to a heart attack. Imagine, if you will, for just a moment, Murph holding all that rage in? Think pressure cooker, overpressurized.

I've heard the pressure cooker metaphor described as a very poor metaphor, in fact a very dangerous metaphor for the way the mind works, by psychologists. The mind isn't a pressure cooker, isn't even like a pressure cooker. When you "let off steam," what you're doing is reinforcing that behavior, making it that much easier to "let off steam" next time.

Rush was right after all, about her sort. I didn't use to think so, but I've seen her type prove Rush right time after time after time.

Seeing as this is still an issue I'm curious to read the reaction of Arab or Muslim readers on this discussion. Any thoughts?

Thank you for the kind words, Fabrice, RWilder, Marian, Jason, and Bill. There was a stretch of time there where I thought I had committed writing-career seppuku. (The jury may still be out on that one...)

Thank you for the advice, Steve, but I'm holding on to the foolish hope that this story will get published somewhere, sometime, someplace. It's still making the rounds right now.

My blog has become quite crazy and contentious in the last few days, going from 0-2 visitors per day to 150-250. Your words about keeping private things private sound very wise to me right now..

I'm a lawyer, but this issue is far, far outside my specialty. It would be deeply unwise for me to suggest causes of action that can be asserted against me. Though a quick internet reference does show that there is a copyright interest in email (esp. in the 6th District), there are other issues such as whether it was in a "fixed medium" to get copyright protection and whether my repost would constitute "fair use" for the public interest. It may constitute public disclosure of private facts, but I know a cause of action against me in California would probably be subject of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. I'm starting to scare myself..

Tom, I'd have a criminal record a mile and a half long if I held it in. I'd have shot someone more than a decade ago. We ever meet, I'll tell you about how it nearly came about in Korea (over just this sort of bullshit)

And you are right. I get so sick of the "let it all go," and "forgive and forget," and "It'll kill you some day."

Well, per one and two, that'd work if things didn't keep going sour (I have pro writers telling me I am well within my rights to be terminally enraged about what should have been my first story sale and I did hold it in for nearly two years when what I really wanted to do was explode all over the board about it). Forgive and forget doesn't work when, deep down inside, you want payback, revenge, their head on a pike, not some warm fuzzy glow.

As for it killing me, I doubt it. We've got pretty good tickers onboard. I suspect I'll outlive most of these folks.

And you can find that out now, Murphy, or in a decade or three when winding yourself up like this rewards you with a premature heart attack or shitty circulatory condition. Seriously.

Clint: What a coincidence--that the same rejection I received last week! Of course, now that you've posted this rejection online everyone will know that you and I write stories which can't hold an editor's interest. :-)

... It's a piece of business correspondence. It's professional, appropriate, and ethical for it to contain commentary on a story. It's not appropriate, professional, or ethical for it to contain racial or religious slurs. Using "copyright"--incorrectly, since it arguably falls perfectly well under fair use to cite correspondence for purposes of criticism or commentary--to protect racism isn't identical with protecting private information.

E Thomas, how does his being Native American exempt him from being a racist? More to the point, how does being any ethnic group other than white exempt anyone from being racist?

I don't care what the contents of the letter were. I'd have said the same thing here and given the same advice no matter what the letter said. You don't have the right to publish someone else's correspondence without permission from that person. Period. End of story.

I agree, R. Wilder. Anyone can blunder It's whether you own up to your blunder and apologize that shows whether you have class or not. This whole incident may well end up helping Luke instead of harming him.

Apparently, Luke made an innocent mistake, he realized it, tried to patch it (partially since the letter is still on the blogosphere), he apologized. Case closed (or at least it should be).

I have scheduled a telecon tomorrow morning with one of the leading copyright lawyers here in Los Angeles on it.

I can either brief you privately via email or post my conclusions here - whichever you prefer.

Letters get published without permission a lot of times by the press, but they probably settle out more often than not.

I can't say why Bill decided to post it and Luke didn't, since Luke does have his own blog(s). Why is that, guys?