Note: Long post, public post, comments off.

So Vox Day names me in one of his recent posts here:

I don't recommend you read it, because it's Vox Day. Here's a screencap including the first anonymous comment on his entry, which we will talk about in a moment.

In the post, VD quoted me from [ profile] james_nicoll's journal, where I said I don't think the screencap of convicted pederast-slash-writer-slash-other-stuff Ed Kramer's membership in the SFWA that Vox posted is real. In return, Vox has listed me on his blog with other people who didn't do anything wrong, calling us all enablers of pederasty, saying we are "whitewashing" the reputations of convicted child molesters because we love SF/F so much.

My opinion of the screencap VD has posted being fake was based on several things. I never could find even one indicator that the entry VD claims he has a screencap of existed. When I went searching for Kramer's SFWA entry at about 8:15AM on June 25th, it would have been less than 48 hours since it was allegedly deleted, according to Vox. Google generally doesn't update their cache so quickly; my own website was offline in the middle of June, and I received search engine hits for three days after my site disappeared. Kramer's SFWA entry wasn't in Google cache, and the exact text of Kramer's entry didn't pull any results from Searching for exact text less than 48 hours after deletion should have given a search result, though clicking on the result would go to a dead link; still, getting that result would prove the item had existed at one point. No result, no proof it ever existed.

Okay, so maybe Google was really on the ball that day and the entry was completely deleted from Google's cache less than 48 hours after Vox saw it. But there were no links linking to Kramer's SFWA entry, per Google, and you'd think at least one person would have linked to it, somewhere, for some reason, over the last several months. No one did.

I had more questions! When trying to score a big internet gotcha, wouldn't VD have bothered to get the direct link to Kramer's entry, the exact URL we could have used to verify his claim, instead of just the flat link to the SFWA database? How come not one of his followers who said they, too, saw Kramer's entry managed to get that direct URL?

And why would the SFWA leave Kramer's entry up after his guilty plea last December if they wanted to cover up the fact he was ever a member? Why would they leave up these voting stats from 2004, four years after his first arrest and conviction for molestation, showing that the SFWA not only allowed him as a member while he was under house arrest, but let him run for office? (He got one vote. As I said elsewhere: I bet we know who voted for himself!)

And how did the SFWA see VD's post so quickly, anyway? Does someone at SFWA monitor his website 24/7, and have a hotline direct to the webmaster who can implement immediate changes based on what VD posted on his blog?

With all that, I said on [ profile] james_nicoll's journal that I thought Vox Day's screencap was likely fake. Vox links to my comment, says my opinion means I enable pedophilia, and the very first commenter says I -- all of us listed in VD's post, actually -- should be "executed."

That's just super.

At the end of the day, VD isn't doing a half bad job of posting valid examples of fandom's failings, but he's not doing it for the right reasons. VD is no hero; he has indulged in rape apologia and attacked a woman who experienced abuse at a SF con, for starters. This has more to do with VD hoping to score a few internet gotchas, and from suffering an epic case of spankedbutt after getting kicked out of the SFWA, than it does about the children who have been victimized and the members of fandom who really did enable it. VD is doing this for attention -- he doesn't give any more of a damn about kids than pederasts do.
On another journal a couple days ago, discussion about Jessica Ennis being labeled "fat" spawned a comment where someone stated that the British "may not actually be the biggest fat bigots in the world, but they're really keen to stay in the competition."

Two people were very upset by this, both seeming to think the person who made the comment was the real bigot. That surprised me, and I didn't understand it at all, since it seemed like the comment was snark and there are a multitude of examples of British tabloids, comments, media, advertising, etc. being fatphobic and body shaming women of any size.

Tonight I realized that I read "fat bigots" as "bigoted against fat people," i.e. the British have fat haters, fatphobes, etc. But I suspect at least one person read it as "the Brits are all bigots who happen to be fat," and that we were all arguing with each other without realizing there was a semantics problem.

I'm not certain that's what happened, but I think it is. I believe the original commenter meant "fat haters" but I can see that, through both their reputation and the wording in this specific instance, it could be taken otherwise.

Once I realized this, I wanted to say something to try to clear the air -- the one person I responded to in the thread has made it clear they don't want to be reminded I even exist because they hate me now that I somewhat defended the original commenter. So instead of responding on the journal where this happened, I'm just gonna post this publicly, no links to the original comment, and with comments here turned off. It makes me feel better, at least, and will hopefully not cause drama.



June 2014

2223242526 2728


RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 07:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios