Roundup of Some “Anonymous Protesters” (#SFWA Bulletin Links)

[jimhines]

“Our Warrior Woman protesters and enemies of the adjective (who unlike Ms. Dworkin will not identify themselves) fall into the category of what Right Wing radio talkers call “liberal fascists,” and I cannot disagree…” -Barry Malzberg

The latest issue of the SFWA Bulletin went out last week while I was at BEA, including both my article about cover

Comments

[rarelylynne]

Yeah. My twitter comments were under my own name. *sigh*

I...just don't have the energy to take this on right now. So I'm glad that others are.

I don't have any problem with sexist asshats showing themselves in public. Fine. Makes them easy to spot and avoid. That's what blogs, etc. are for.

But this kind of everyday sexism has no place in a professional publication that is supposed to represent a whole industry. Period.

Now I will go back to doing my best to select and showcase exceptional fiction, which is a good use of my energy, I think.

[trishalynn]

I got the same form response, and I also totally understood. I also just got a response from the SFWA VP, also acknowledging my letter.

[mtlawson]

I consider their thought processes another example of the same behavior found in the Harlan Ellison posse/defenders.

[deborahblakehps]

"We can write the future, but we can't even live in the present." THIS.

Also, not for nothing, but *headdesk* that we are still having to have this discussion at all.

[spiziks]

I haven't reacted because so many other people have done so much more quickly and effectively than I, but their use of the word "anonymous" did make me think of the line from THE PRINCESS BRIDE: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It also annoys me that those two, like Statler and Waldorf, have been given a (paid) platform of many, many thousands of words every quarter when it's been long clear that their views are outdated, outmoded, and just plain out. Now this. I hope Rabe takes advantage of this moment to quietly retire their nonsensical ravings for good.

[blpurdom]

Which, I suppose, they will decry as censorship (assuming it happens). Meanwhile, if I don't want someone at a party I'm hosting screaming racist epithets at my other guests, I just don't invite someone who is likely to do that. I consider it to be be "choosing my company", not "censorship". I don't necessarily disinvite everyone with a different viewpoint, but I do draw the line at someone who is belittling and verbally abusive to others. I think in another time this was called "good manners", not being "censored".