In the latest re-run of Racefail09, Barry Malzberg and Mike Resnick are being demonized for insufficient leftism – primarily Barry Malzberg, previously a leading leftist of Science Fiction, who, in his younger days, was substantially influential in imposing the then new and rigidly boring political orthodoxy on science fiction and fantasy. Now in their seventies, they failed to quite keep up with the latest orthodoxy, falling two or three years behind the latest feminist line. Or rather they were in their seventies. They are now, like Winston Smith at the end of “1984”, pre-dead. (more…)
Posts Tagged ‘racefail 09’
The left claims authority to convict people for thought crimes committed in other people’s dreams. The hearer can find an offensive meaning without concern for authorial intent, and the author is guilty regardless of his intended meaning. This leads to conflict, Racefail 09 being part of that conflict.
Under Racefail 09 rules, you have no obligation to understand other people’s intended meaning, and if you cannot follow what they say, and so confabulate up an offensive meaning, you are superior, you win, they are inferior, and they lose.
The smart, and those fluent in words, often express themselves in ways that are subtle, which the stupid and ignorant find hard to follow. Reading words that are hard to follow, they feel offended. Racefail 09 rules guarantee that if they feel offended, their offense must be justified.
Thus Racefail 09 rules tend to be popular with the stupid and incoherent, and unpopular with the clever and those good with words. Since the reader has sole authority to decide the writers meaning, and the writer is at fault if the reader decides on an offensive meaning, Racefail 09 is a pretty good deal for people who have trouble following other people’s words.
John Scalzi said he wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with the racefail 09 debate, and would ban anyone who brings the debate to his blog.
This non statement, and non communication, caused intense outrage, resulting in massive attack on John Scalzi, since all good leftists have to enthusiastically agree with the correct line, and failure to join the chant about the badness of various people under attack is itself a great and terrible sin.
One of the posters on his blog explains why Scalzi is now under attack:
the reason you [John Scalzi] drew ire is your inability to follow proper protocol:
- Acknowledge that you’re wrong, and guilty on all counts of whatever the other party accuses you, and
- agree with the accuser on just how very, very wrong you are/were, while knowing that any level of self-debasement isn’t going to be enough to placate them.
Clearly, the only thing that would begin to set things right would be your ritual suicide, hurling yourself into a bonfire fueled by everything you’ve ever written on- or offline. Don’t forget to put it on YouTube, accompanied by a ten-page manifesto on the magnitude of your wrongness, and the corresponding rightness of the accuser.
In response, Scalzi apologized profusely, and proceeded piously to post a lot of politically correct piety about race in literature, indirectly demonizing all his friends, allies, and supporters, without, however, directly addressing the debate concerning the sinfulness of various actual writers and bloggers.
Come on. That is not good enough. In your repentance, you need to directly condemn as many people as possible.