Origins Game Fair Drops Larry Correia as Guest

Larry Correia won’t be one of the guests when the Origins Game Fair takes place June 13-17 in Columbus, OH. Shortly after publicizing that Correia had been added to the lineup, John Ward, the event’s Executive Director, received so many negative social media comments (on Twitter, particularly) that he announced Correia’s invitation has been rescinded.

Ward wrote on Facebook:

I want to discuss our invitation to Larry Correia a guest at Origins. By all counts he is a very talented author.

Unfortunately, when he was recommended I was unaware of some personal views that are specifically unaligned with the philosophy of our show and the organization.

I want to thank those of you that brought this error to our attention. Origins is an inclusive and family friendly event. We focus on fun and gaming, not discourse and controversy.

I felt it necessary to recend [sic] his invitation to participate in the show. I apologize again to those of you that were looking forward to seeing him at Origins.

John Ward, Executive Director

Many of the critical tweets mentioned Correia’s history with Sad Puppies.

Correia subsequently responded on Facebook with a statement that begins:

So I’m no longer the writer guest of honor at origins. My invitation has been revoked. It was the usual nonsense. Right after I was announced as a guest some people started throwing a temper tantrum about my alleged racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever (of course, with zero proof or actual examples), and the guy in charge (John Ward) immediately folded. He didn’t even talk to me first. He just accepted the slander and gave me the boot in an email that talked about how “inclusive” they are….

His statement also says “none of these people can ever find any actual examples of me being sexist, racist, or homophobic.”


BEFORE AND AFTER:


787 thoughts on “Origins Game Fair Drops Larry Correia as Guest

  1. Sarah came from a socialist country, and does not want to go back. Or have her current country go back to that either. Her hatred of socialism (which may be conflated with liberalism) comes from personal experience.

    Sarah’s idea of “socialist” seems to mean “a regime that stopped arresting people for political opinions and torturing them before killing them”, which she thoroughly approved of.

    And here’s the thing: for Americans, being “moderately right wing” might mean that you have a nasty Thankgiving dinner with family. For the rest of the world, it means that those nice, polite, wholesome and genteel Americans will very willingly vote for, support and enforce a regime that will overthrow your government (Chile, Iran, sundry Latin American countries some of them speaking Portuguese), arm, train and support the people who will kidnap you, your friends and your relatives and torture them before they drop them alive in the ocean from a plane (Argentina, although I understand a Frenchman invented this fun procedure.)

    This is not theoretical for me. I was a teenager when Italy was full of refugees from Latin America. If some of our elections had gone differently, I might have been one of those bodies dropped from a plane.

  2. @CassyB

    I sat at a consuite table with Lou Antonelli, at a con a few years after Sasquan. Didn’t know who he was until, as I was leaving to go to a panel, I happened to glance at his nametag. He seemed a perfectly pleasant older gentleman; if I hadn’t known he’d called the cops on David Gerrold I never would have guessed he’d do such a thing. (Our conversation didn’t involve politics at all; it was entirely on which upcoming panels looked interesting. It’s entirely possible — perhaps even likely — that if politics had come up I would have seen another side of the man.)

    Or … perhaps politics has no place at the con. And if we keep insisting on bringing politics into every thing we do, we lose.

  3. @Kathodus

    It isn’t that she dislikes socialism, it’s that she can’t tell the difference between democratic socialism and Stalinism and sees marxist bogeymen everywhere she looks.

    Perhaps. But given her background, I don’t blame her for being sensitive on the subject.

  4. rmhartman on May 17, 2018 at 12:56 pm said:

    Perhaps. But given her background, I don’t blame her for being sensitive on the subject.

    We aren’t talking about somebody who fled North Korea or who was shot at trying to climb the Berlin Wall. Nor is it even a matter of ‘blame’. It’s a question of what her views are actually like and describing them usefully – and yes, they are extreme.

    If anything her experience with actual radical leftists in Portugal should make it easier to spot that somebody like, say, John Scalzi, isn’t a radical leftist. I guess there is some sort of argument to be made that her experience in Portugal so traumatised her that she can’t think about politics coherently but the upshot of that argument would still be ‘she can’t think about politics coherently’.

  5. rmhartman on May 17, 2018 at 12:56 pm said:
    @Kathodus

    It isn’t that she dislikes socialism, it’s that she can’t tell the difference between democratic socialism and Stalinism and sees marxist bogeymen everywhere she looks.

    Perhaps. But given her background, I don’t blame her for being sensitive on the subject.

    PORTUGAL. Not Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North Korea, Albania, Ceausescu’s Romania or even the good old Soviet Union. Not Cuba. Not the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. Not even, dare I say it, the vicious and cruel Swedish regime. Portugal.

    Her background means that she experienced all the horror of a regime slightly to the left of Pinochet’s.

  6. To the best of my knowledge, they have nothing to do with VD, much less are being “manipulated” by him.

    Not so. Back in 2015 Brad Torgerson made a great virtue of refusing to call his pal VD a racist when he was called out for working with VD to get their collective slate on the Hugo ballot. As far as I understood from what Brad was saying on his blog, calling someone a racist was SUCH was a horrible thing to do – so much worse, apparently, than actually BEING a racist – that it was an absolute point of honor for Brad that he not call VD a racist.

    IMO, you don’t put up that kind of defense for a white supremacist racist whose support is benefitting your slate if you have ‘nothing to do with’ him.

  7. But after it has been announced? You need something real, physical, to justify the disinvite. Anything to show that he might be an actual danger to people there.

    Nope. All the convention needs is sufficient cause for making the statement “It is inappropriate for the convention as an entity to make an official statement that this person is worth honoring.” Once the convention realizes that, they aren’t just justified in revoking Guest of Honor status, they are obligated to.

  8. Creating a multi-year effort to destroy a set of awards and the organization you imagine is responsible for them is the sort of thing you only really have to do once to earn the distrust of other organizations.

  9. But after it has been announced? You need something real, physical, to justify the disinvite. Anything to show that he might be an actual danger to people there.

    You are inventing a new rule here and I don’t think it’s a wise one. A person can be less than a physical danger at a convention and still be prudent to exclude. Here, Correia’s past behavior led to an immediate backlash when his Origins guest of honor invite was made public. That backlash included exhibitors and sponsors of the con. They didn’t want to be associated with him and made their feelings known to the organizers.

  10. Ms Hoyt never says just what horrors Portugal forced on her. She was an exchange student to Ohio in high school. She was able to marry an American and move here. I don’t recall that Portugal was a hideous wasteland in the late 70s early 80s.

    But she certainly seems to be an apologist for the right. Where I grew up, the COMMUNISTS were everywhere trying to take over with books like “Catcher in the Rye” and “Brave New World”. I’ve heard her rhetoric for years.

    On the removal of Confederate statues:
    The statues aren’t built because these people owned slaves or were racist. They are built to showcase the things they did that were right.

    On America as an occupied country:

    Foreign agents (natural born, but recruited early by Soviet Agit Prop) control our media, our education, our entertainment.

  11. Anna Feruglio Dal Dan on May 17, 2018 at 1:03 pm said:

    PORTUGAL. Not Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North Korea, Albania, Ceausescu’s Romania or even the good old Soviet Union. Not Cuba. Not the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. Not even, dare I say it, the vicious and cruel Swedish regime. Portugal.

    Indeed. Also, I’ve known many people from Vietnam, Cambodia, Romania, Poland, China, East Germany, the USSR, Yugoslavia (as was) – who lived in those countries at times of appalling and repressive behaviour by the regimes there but who then went to live in the UK or Australia. Not only did none of them share Hoyt’s odd inability to make political distinctions, many of them of were both vehemently anti-communist AND active in centre-left/social-democratic politics.

  12. @mhartman:

    The same can be said in reverse as well.

    I am more than willing to have civil discussion though. I’ll keep my mask on if you keep yours on too.

    FYI, your mask is slipping. Especially in your later comments.

    Perhaps you can enlighten me about the times “SJWs” organized to sabotage puppy awards, eh? Or when they advocated violence against conservative writers and fans, or doxxed same in an effort to get their way? Remind me, please, of the occasions when women SWATted those poor Gamergaters who just wanted to do their jobs without being doxxed and harassed…

    I’m sure you can find some obnoxious liberal behavior, but the two sides are far from equivalent in that respect.

    Not everything is about the books. Especially this con. [Origins]

    Naming someone a GOH is about the person, not their products. Yes, their achievements matter – but first and foremost, you’re honoring the person. The achievements are evidence of why the person merits recognition.

    If it turned out that the Boston Strangler was alive, at large, and the author of multiple bestselling SF novels, the fact that he was a serial killer should prevent him from being invited as a GOH regardless of the popularity of his books. Behavior matters!

    Not one person has ever had anything but good things to say about his behavior in person.

    Um, I HAVE! In bold, since you missed it the first time around.

    But after it has been announced? You need something real, physical, to justify the disinvite. Anything to show that he might be an actual danger to people there.

    Bullshit. If you’re running a con and you decide that’s your bar, that’s your choice. As you do not run Origins, you do not get to tell them what their standards are. You can voice disapproval and withhold your patronage, but that’s all you get to do.

    And yes, I’ve seen cons implode as the result of stupid decisions by the concom. I still defended the concom’s right to make those mistakes. Their money, their choice.

    @Ultragotha: “I now have to retrain my brain to Kuh-tine.”

    I know the feeling. I’m having to retrain my “Tawny” mnemonic after realizing that the latter syllable is “tine” and not “tane.” 😉

    @Dann: “IMHO, the publisher’s calculus changed at that point. Where they might have stayed with Ms. Hoyt during a time of lower sales if her political opinions had been socially acceptable, declining any further books became an easier option during the same decline.”

    I’m sure you have evidence (as opposed to unsupported speculation from people with axes to grind) to support this, yes?

    MHN is LC’s virtual front office. He decorates it as he pleases. He pleases to be pretty blunt and occasionally rude in that office. As long as he isn’t in the habit of bringing his front office to the con, then it isn’t…or shouldn’t….be an issue.

    Are you seriously contending that a con shouldn’t consider someone’s self-selected public persona – how they decide to present themselves to the world – when evaluating them as GOH material?

    If I were to revive my personal website and plaster photos of myself wearing Klan garb in front of a burning cross, I would be quite shocked if the NAACP invited me to speak at one of their events – regardless of how polite I might be in person. (For the record, I have nothing but disgust and loathing for the Klan and its ideals.) Likewise, swap those photos out for ones of me kissing a black man, and I would not expect CPAC or the Klan to invite me to their events. (Also for the record, I’m straight and have no romantic partner. I use myself in these hypotheticals purely so that nobody can accuse me of making coded references to anyone else.)

    That’s the consequence of having a “virtual front office” – people form opinions about you based on how you present yourself there. That’s rather the point; the VFO establishes your brand. It is what you put out there specifically so people can form opinions about you.

    Regarding ROHD, I found this archive pretty easily. I’m not familiar with this zine but thought this might be of use to someone.

    That’s a very useful link; thanks. (There used to be an archive on the LibertyCon website. I was not aware of a third-party archive.) I checked out the 2018-01-03 issue to see if it had changed appreciably in the last few years, since I stopped my subscription. It has not. It remains a mix of dubious humor, far-right politics, and science/tech articles, all wrapped up in a good-ol’-boy tone.

    I recommend that those curious about the Puppy mindset take a look at an issue or two for themselves. I will also note that while I was a subscriber, I frequently sent links which exposed media bias and debunked supposedly-factual articles; Timmy isn’t much for fact-checking on some subjects. To his credit, once I pointed such issues out to him, I recall him being pretty good about running corrections. It doesn’t look like he’s acquired the fact-checking habit since then, either.

    The last page of that particular issue really sums the zine’s viewpoint up better than I thought any one page could. It’s an image of Xena, photoshopped to have Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s face. She’s holding Mjolnir (with “MAGA” etched on one face), and a defeated CNN personality lies at her feet. The captions read “Sarah: Warrior Press Secretary” and “Wielding the Fact Hammer in a ‘Post-Truth’ World.” Underneath the image: “I had this in last week’s Revenge, but I enjoyed it so much that I had to print it again. UT” (His signature; UT = Uncle Timmy.)

    To steal a section title from The Revenge, “You can’t make this stuff up!”

  13. “To the best of my knowledge, they have nothing to do with VD, much less are being “manipulated” by him.”

    VD was on the Sad Puppy ballot for year two and Torgersen mentioned him as being involved in creating the slate for year three. So they absolutely were involved with him.

  14. Also, regarding safety, it is reasonable to be alarmed by a GoH not by whether they personally would misbehave but whether their fans would. (Not saying Larry Correia’s fans would misbehave either – just saying it is part of the calculus)*

    *[Having said that, there’s people who comment at MHN that I would not want to be in close proximity to even if they didn’t know who I was. Poor temper control and a tendency to rush towards violent metaphors.]

  15. @RevBob: @Dann: “IMHO, the publisher’s calculus changed at that point. Where they might have stayed with Ms. Hoyt during a time of lower sales if her political opinions had been socially acceptable, declining any further books became an easier option during the same decline.”

    I’m sure you have evidence (as opposed to unsupported speculation from people with axes to grind) to support this, yes?

    I’d love to see evidence of this myself. I’ve had one, possibly two series dropped for declining sales, and we all know I’m left as all get out! Frankly, unless somebody SAID “We are tired of dealing with your politics,” anything is speculation. There’s no real way to double-blind literary careers. (God, would that there were!)

  16. @Anna Feruglio Dal Dan: “For the rest of the world, it means that those nice, polite, wholesome and genteel Americans will very willingly vote for, support and enforce a regime that will overthrow your government (Chile, Iran, sundry Latin American countries some of them speaking Portuguese), arm, train and support the people who will kidnap you, your friends and your relatives and torture them before they drop them alive in the ocean from a plane (Argentina, although I understand a Frenchman invented this fun procedure.)”

    That is an excellent point which we Americans could stand to be reminded of more frequently.

    @Steven desJardins: “All the convention needs is sufficient cause for making the statement “It is inappropriate for the convention as an entity to make an official statement that this person is worth honoring.” Once the convention realizes that, they aren’t just justified in revoking Guest of Honor status, they are obligated to.”

    So much THIS.

    Who a con honors speaks to what a con values. Honor a good person, and it shows you value goodness. Honor a saboteur, and…

  17. “The socialism being advanced in the U.S. is certainly not liberal. “

    It is socialliberalism. Look it up. US isn’t even near socialdemocracy, much less socialism. National healthcare would be a very small step towards socialliberalism.

  18. Last comment regarding Sarah Hoyt and her hate for communism/socialism.

    I was not trying to validate her opinion, I was only trying to explain it. Whether she is right, wrong, misinterpreted what was going on around her as a child, or completely understood it — I can’t say. Somebody noted that she had a real mad on about socialism, and I was just providing background.

    PLEASE do not try to argue with me about what SHE lived through.

  19. If telling people “I understand that’s how you see your experience, but I think you’re interpreting it badly” is wrong, than Hoyt and a lot of her compatriots owe many, many apologies to trans people (and a bunch of other queer people), to people of color who’ve been targeted for harassment and violence, to…the list rather goes on and on. I don’t see what’s so distinctive about Hoyt that she should be scared this kind of basic skeptical response, particularly when she keeps associating with people who willfully repeat lies and distortions in the face of years of corrections.

  20. @jayn

    Not so. Back in 2015 Brad Torgerson made a great virtue of refusing to call his pal VD a racist when he was called out for working with VD to get their collective slate on the Hugo ballot.

    My understanding was that since he did not know VD, he was not going to comment on VD. Pro, con, or sideways.

    Of course, some people are of the “if you are not with us, you are against us” and deny the possibility of a neutral state. So a refusal to condemn VD must (by definition) be taken as support.

    One of us clearly has this wrong. But which of us? Without going back and digging through the old blog posts it would be difficult to say.

    I am not inclined to do that digging, so we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

    While I have been reading the back posts here, looking for discussion of origins but finding mainly discussion of puppies/hugoes, I read that some people here were raked over the coals by the puppies at the time, I have to mention that the reverse is true as well. That period reflected well on no one. In specific, Brad was accused of being a racist. When it was pointed out that his wife was black, people went so far as to assert that he married her only as a smoke screen for his racism.

    Really? Can you imagine a racist THAT dedicated to his racism that he would marry a black woman and have children with her JUST to cover up his racism?

    Some really stupid things came from that whole event.

  21. @Rev. Bob

    FYI, your mask is slipping. Especially in your later comments.

    Please show me which of my posts here have been less than civil.

  22. @hampus

    VD was on the Sad Puppy ballot for year two and Torgersen mentioned him as being involved in creating the slate for year three. So they absolutely were involved with him.

    It was my understanding that VD created the extremist “Rabid Puppy” faction, which was separate from “Sad Puppies”. Is this not so?

  23. @Rev. Bob

    Um, I HAVE! In bold, since you missed it the first time around.

    I will have to go back over for that. There has been a lot.

  24. @camestros

    Also, regarding safety, it is reasonable to be alarmed by a GoH not by whether they personally would misbehave but whether their fans would. (Not saying Larry Correia’s fans would misbehave either – just saying it is part of the calculus)*

    That is an interesting point. On the other hand, I have not heard of roving bands of Correiafen roaming the halls with blunt instruments either. Is there any reason to believe that his fans would be disruptive?

  25. @rmhartman

    My understanding was that since he did not know VD, he was not going to comment on VD. Pro, con, or sideways.

    One of us clearly has this wrong. But which of us? Without going back and digging through the old blog posts it would be difficult to say.

    Oh no, that’s easy to say – it’s you that has it wrong. Despite trying to obfuscate the links later, the initial cooperation with VD was documented by their own statements.

    In specific, Brad was accused of being a racist.

    I have to give a slow hand clap here at the attempted derail.

  26. @rmhartman,

    someone can have strong positive connections to people with a particular attribute, yet still be prejudiced against people with that attribute.

    Trivial example: A man who is married to a woman may still be sexist. Consider, for example, every single married-to-a-woman man who advocated against women’s suffrage.

    So when someone in their words and/or actions shows clear signs of a strong bias such as sexism, racism or otherwise, “but I have a black/gay/female/… friend/lover/spouse/…!” isn’t a particularly useful defense when others point out those biases.

  27. I suppose it’s possible that someone, somewhere said that Torgersen got married in a convoluted racist plot, but what I recall seeing was people pointing out that being married to a black person no more makes you immune to racism than being married to a woman makes you immune to sexism. Some people also felt that he was trying to use an unrelated personal connection as a shield against criticism for the things he was saying. The marital equivalent of the much-mocked “I have a [minority] friend therefore~”.

    I also recall the Puppies leaping immediately to the same misrepresentation as above, and I never saw them link to or quote anyone saying what they claimed had been said. Given how frequently the Puppies twisted words until they were unrecognisable (presumably because, as Rev. Bob experienced, they believed it was what people “really meant” and after that it didn’t matter what people actually said), I wouldn’t take their word for anything without seeing receipts. I don’t enjoy having to be so suspicious, and it certainly doesn’t come naturally, but I’ve seen them claim one thing only for it turn out to be completely false too many times to take what they say on faith.

    Most of us know Hoyt’s background on File770. There was no real need to bring it up.

  28. “It was my understanding that VD created the extremist “Rabid Puppy” faction, which was separate from “Sad Puppies”. Is this not so?”

    Yes. That is also true.

  29. @Dann

    Back to the original question above, the odds are quite good that there was a worthy book out there in that year that simply hadn’t achieved the requisite amount of popularity with the sub-section of fandom that is Worldcon voters. I’d have to root around in my archives to find something specific.

    I just checked my records and my nominees for the 2014 Hugos, i.e. the year where one of Larry Correia’s novels was up for the Hugo, were as follows:

    Perdition by Ann Aguirre
    Fortune’s Pawn by Rachel Bach
    The Shining Girls by Lauren Beukes
    The Diamond Deep by Brenda Cooper
    Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie

    Of these five, only Ancillary Justice, the eventual winner, made it. Fortune’s Pawn and Perdition would both have been excellent Hugo finalists and in fact were better than most of what was on the actual shortlist (which I found very weak in 2014 – I think I placed No Award in third place and I didn’t particularly like the book in second place either). I remember being particularly diappointed that neither Fortune’s Pawn nor the two later books in the trilogy made it, since I love that trilogy to bits. The Shining Girls is not really a Hugo novel, it’s more a Clarke Award type book, but it still would have been a good finalist. The Diamond Deep was always a long shot, since it’s the second part of a duology and has more of a YA feel.

    Regarding American Socialists, the people who proclaim themselves Socialists in the US, i.e. folks like Bernie Sanders, would fit comfortably into the Socialdemocratic Party over here, i.e. moderately centre left. Hilary Clinton would fit right into Angela Merkel’s conservative party, while John Scalzi’s political utterings often remind me of the more leftwing members of Angela Merkel’s party. None of these people come even close to the Green Party, let alone the Left Party.

  30. Re: Correia, as far as I’m concerned the GoH system is a sort of mutual exchange. The (pro) GoH gets the publicity and the egoboo and the reputation boost and a chance to interact with fans, and the convention gets the benefit of the GoH’s experience and presence and draw. If the GoH turns out to be a negative for the convention – if, for example, their sponsors and exhibitors protest – then the underlying social contract is violated.

    Correia’s attempted to do nasty things to conventions with awards before now. Better to stay far, far away than get involved with his potential baggage. It’s just a shame that Origins didn’t figure that out and veto him as a guest rather than causing this mess.

    Origins should still reimburse him for costs incurred.

  31. My understanding was that since he did not know VD, he was not going to comment on VD. Pro, con, or sideways….One of us clearly has this wrong. But which of us? Without going back and digging through the old blog posts it would be difficult to say.

    Pretty clearly true from the evidence that they all DID know VD. If you’re interested in preserving the purity of your lack of knowledge so that you can continue to say Torgersen and others have NOTHING to do with VD, be prepared to avert your eyes.

    Here is Brad Torgersen’s wordy defense of why he doesn’t want to ‘shun’ VD, a man he carefully admits he is and will continue to be ‘engaging in dialogue’ with because he explains he’s a Mormon and it’s a Christian virtuous act to befriend the ‘untouchables’ of society, as if refusing to call a racist a racist was an act of charity akin to washing the feet of the leper.

    https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/shunning-and-radioactivity/

    And here is his long, long paean of praise for himself for nobly refusing to call a man who told a POC author “genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens” a racist. He calls him a ‘shock jock’, which conveys the idea that he’s perfectly well aware of the stuff VD spouts but is willing to vouch that VD’s just ‘pushing the right buttons’ – and not actually deadly serious about being a racist misogynist who praised the shooting of Malala Yousafzai, among other vilenesses. He’s got no business vouching that if he does not know the man. And all throughout his copious weeping over his own martyrdom at being judged poorly for not condemning VD’s shit, he never ONCE acknowledges that he has a less noble motivation to stay friendly with VD – all those Rabid Puppy votes for their common slate – which we know now was the only reason any of SP’s items got nominated.

    And among the comments is someone quoting Correia himself:
    “I don’t think you guys realize that most of me and Brad’s communication with Vox consists of us asking him to be nice and not burn it all down out of spite.”

    https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/unpersoning/

    Here is Hoyt acknowledging that ‘the Banished one” (VD) was part of the Larry’s Evil League of Evil:
    https://accordingtohoyt.com/2014/08/03/friendly-fire-in-the-science-fiction-wars/

    Happy? Can’t say I am.

  32. Dann: Regarding ROHD, I found this archive pretty easily. I’m not familiar with this zine but thought this might be of use to someone.

    Yes, but those are all post-Archon GoH incident, and what he’s doing in his fanzine now may or may not have any relevance to what he did in his fanzine for years before that, which is what caused the controversy. Which is why I didn’t bother mentioning the archive you found so easily.

  33. On the removal of Confederate statues:
    The statues aren’t built because these people owned slaves or were racist. They are built to showcase the things they did that were right.

    Netflix here in the UK has Ken Burns’ excellent documentary on the Civil War. Among other things, those excellent people and true Southern gentlemen not only went to war with their nation to protect the “truth” that not all men were equal and some were naturally slaves; they also attacked the rest of their nation. And they went to war, firing the first shots, not only in defence of an execrable cause but against a country which had four times the population and several times the GDP of the Confederation. It was, as they say, not just a crime, but a mistake.

    Or to quote William Tecumseh Sherman:

    You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

    But hey, they were so gallant, those “rebel” soldiers.

  34. @JJ: [The issues in the ROHD archive] “are all post-Archon GoH incident, and what he’s doing in his fanzine now may or may not have any relevance to what he did in his fanzine for years before that, which is what caused the controversy. Which is why I didn’t bother mentioning the archive you found so easily.”

    I read (and linked to) the January 3rd, 2018 issue. It is fundamentally unchanged since the pre-Archon days. Everything about it precisely matches the zine I remember having read for a few years. The style, the far-right politics, the crass jokes, the lack of fact-checking… all of it.

  35. Dear Jayn

    I started to skim Hoyt’s essay about VD and quit before I was halfway thru because, soooo bored, please get to the point… but before I quit I hit the paragraph where she talks about 70’s and being gay that includes “…For instance, in the seventies it was believed that being gay was a matter of choice…” (in case anyone wants to find it), and…

    Oh my effin’ God!!!!

    To quote Wolfgang Pauli,

    This isn’t even wrong.

    I was centrally involved in creating some of that narrative. I know exactly why it was created, and at whom it was directed, and why it switched mid-decade. There was complicated and interesting sociology and some cynically pragmatic politics at work. Not one bit of it had anything to do with what she’s ranting about. It very definitely had nothing to do with with leftist or Marxist philosophy.

    If this is even minimally representative of her level of cluedness and scholarship, anything she says is entirely dismissible. She doesn’t know what the hell she talks about.

    – pax \ Ctein
    [ Please excuse any word-salad. Dragon Dictate in training! ]
    ======================================
    — Ctein’s Online Gallery. http://ctein.com 
    — Digital Restorations. http://photo-repair.com 
    ======================================

  36. @Ctein
    I must admit you got a lot further than I did – to me it all turned into the visual equivalent of the ‘wah-WAH-wah’ noise you hear on the Charlie Brown cartoons when grown-ups are talking.

  37. @Ctein: “I was centrally involved in creating some of that narrative. I know exactly why it was created, and at whom it was directed, and why it switched mid-decade. There was complicated and interesting sociology and some cynically pragmatic politics at work.”

    Sounds like a fascinating story. Could you perchance recommend a link that goes into more detail on those inner workings?

  38. rmhartman on May 17, 2018 at 3:38 pm said:
    @camestros

    (Me){Also, regarding safety, it is reasonable to be alarmed by a GoH not by whether they personally would misbehave but whether their fans would. (Not saying Larry Correia’s fans would misbehave either – just saying it is part of the calculus)*}

    That is an interesting point. On the other hand, I have not heard of roving bands of Correiafen roaming the halls with blunt instruments either. Is there any reason to believe that his fans would be disruptive?

    As I said, I don’t have any specific reason to assume his fans would behave poorly and I would not want to suggest that they might. It was a general observation about relative factors I would consider about a headliner at an event.

    Having said that, there are some people who comment at MHN who I would definitely avoid because of their apparent poor control of their temper. But I’m not sure to what extent they are fans of Correia as a writer or just like the shouty bits at SJWs. There are several I’ve encountered who act like the kind of people who shout at staff in cafes or who get agitated when somebody speaks a language foreign to them* but then Larry isn’t his comment section and his comment section is not represntative of his fans in general.

    *[and there’s people with poor temper control on all sides of politics obviously]

  39. Rev. Bob: [Revenge of Hump Day] is fundamentally unchanged since the pre-Archon days.

    Yeah, of the two pre-Archon ones I linked, I looked at one, and it had a really sexist joke as well as an egregiously transphobic job. At that point, I stopped looking.

  40. rmhartman: Brad was accused of being a racist. When it was pointed out that his wife was black, people went so far as to assert that he married her only as a smoke screen for his racism.

    Now, this is a flat-out lie. The only question is whether you are deliberately lying, or whether you are repeating someone else’s lie on blind faith because you can’t be bothered to verify that things are true before you repeat them.

    What actually happened was this.
    1) BT said various racist things
    2) People pointed out that the things he had said were racist
    3) BT said “I can’t possibly be racist, I’m married to a black woman!” (note very carefully that it was BT himself, and no one else, who brought his wife into this)
    4) People pointed out that being married to a woman does not preclude a person from being a sexist or misogynist, being married to a Jewish woman does not preclude a person from being anti-semitic, and being married to a black woman does not preclude a person from being a racist. People (correctly) pointed out that he was using his wife as a shield to avoid having to acknowledge his racism.
    5) BT yelled “YOU JUST ACCUSED ME OF MARRYING MY WIFE SO I COULD USE HER AS A SHIELD FOR MY RACISM!”
    6) Clueless people like you bought into BT’s lie hook, line, and sinker, because it aligned with their personal narratives.

    Given the blatant inaccuracy of this and several other things you’ve asserted here as being “truth”, yes, I’d say that your mask is down on the floor somewhere, and you’re just oblivious to the fact that it’s not on your face.

  41. Dear Rev Bob and Jayn,

    Y’know, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the SF LGBT Center had a lot of information about this, but I don’t know what would be online, and I don’t how one would search for it — unless there’s someone out there who just happened to write an historical or academic paper on the subject.

    I’d rather not write something for public consumption, for the simple reason that I’d have to do a hell of a lot of fact checking, because anything that goes up on the Internet becomes part of the historical record and I sure wouldn’t trust my memory of 40-odd years ago. Sure, the overall narrative would be accurate, but history is in the specifics.

    But… If you both want to email me, I’ll write up a reply that will give you the essence of what was going on.

    Very briefly and leaving out all the details: neither of the narratives, nature or nurture, was widely promulgated because people necessarily believed it was true (although some did and still do). They were promulgated because they helped to achieve political ends.

    Even more briefly: we made shit up because it was useful.

    Email me. (And anyone else who is interested, also feel free to do so.)

    – pax \ Ctein
    [ Please excuse any word-salad. Dragon Dictate in training! ]
    ======================================
    — Ctein’s Online Gallery. http://ctein.com 
    — Digital Restorations. http://photo-repair.com 
    ======================================

  42. Fans don’t have to be at a convention to do harm. Correia’s fans who are currently doxing and harassing GAMA employees and exhibitors aren’t, for instance. Ditto with the fans of Richard C. “Diversity & Comix” Meyer fans doing the same to comic book shop employees and comics creators.

  43. Elsewhere I saw someone whining about how doxxing shouldn’t be taken as a sign that a person’s likely to be trouble in person at a con, so I want to amplify that last a bit.

    Typical con-goers are likely to have wallets, and to have things in them. Some cash. One or more credit cards. Receipts, many with payment info. Identification cards – Social Security, driver’s license or non-driver’s ID, and so on. Business cards, including for people con-goers are seeing privately, like counselors with LGBTQ specializations, medical specialists working on conditions that can expose people to harassment, and the like. All of these are things that people who are comfortable engaging in doxxing could have a lot of fun with – just pick up a wallet someone left insufficiently secured, snap a bunch of pictures, and publicize them at your leisure, or exploit the info for your own entertainment and/or gain.

    Now, sure, some fraction of those willing to dox in the comfort of their own homes won’t wish to take the risks of doing so at a convention. But just how are the rest of us supposed to be at all confident who’s whom about that stuff? And if the public figures these folks are fans of are doing anything but stomping down as hard as possible on such behavior, then cons are being downright smart in declining to welcome them in.

  44. Ctein–you left off the end of Ms Hoyt’s sentence.
    “For instance, in the seventies it was believed that being gay was a matter of choice, and all leftists proclaimed this.”
    Granted, it’s been a number of years and my mind isn’t as sharp as it was, but I really really can’t recall anything like that. Sure, I was living in Iowa but in a college town with loads of lefty/feministy/radical types ranging from a dyke collective to a Maoist US/China Friendship Coalition. The only ones saying it was a choice were people like Campus Crusade for Christ.

    I’d doubt if the Center in SF has anything–IMHO, it doesn’t really have much purpose to begin with. The GLBT Historical Society might have someone’s archives buried in there. God knows they and the other archives like LA and NY are getting buried in collections.

  45. Re “TGE wuz robbed!”, I at least am not making that as a serious complaint. As has been pointed out, it lost fair and square. But that doesn’t stop me from being disappointed!

    @ Bruce A: ISTR that somebody had a screenshot of a Correia post welcoming the GGers to his blog and explaining the mechanics of Hugo voting to them. That would have been in 2015, I think.

    @ Kevin: There is never any evidence that disproves a conspiracy theory. There is only evidence which proves it, and evidence which would prove it if not for [insert conspiracy-theory excuse of choice].

  46. Dear Harold,

    I was quoting only to identify the paragraph for people wanting to find it, not to represent what Hoyt said. Because what she said was ridiculous, and there was no reason to give it more space. Demonstrating that it was nutso would require way, way, way too much public effort.

    As I said, it wasn’t even wrong! You know the quote this refers to? Do I need to explain it?

    ~~~~

    Dear Bruce,

    Err, that is more than a tad over the top. To me, it reads exactly like the ridiculous rhetoric that comes from the other side, to whit, “If these people are capable of X, who knows what else they are capable of?!”

    I don’t find this even the most minimally credible threat.

    pax / Ctein

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *