Horror Writers of America President Lisa Morton announced on HWA’s Facebook page that David A. Riley is now off the award jury he’d been appointed to.
In regards to the situation involving David Riley, who announced on his blog that he would be serving on the Anthology jury: We’ve reached out to Mr. Riley, and both Mr. Riley and the HWA have agreed that it’s in the best interest of all for him to step down. Mr. Riley will be replaced on the jury immediately by Nicole Cushing. The HWA thanks Nicole for stepping up, and we would also like to thank everyone who has shared their opinion on this matter.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I do think it’s bullying to send “pissed off” missives after someone has considered and stated that they wish to remain on a certain path. Threatening a boycott is an activist strategy.
And? Boycotts are part of free speech. When someone says “we are going to do this” and you say “if you do, then I’m going to choose not to associate with you”, or “I’m not going to purchase your product”, that’s not bullying. That’s free speech and free association.
This isn’t about reviews. It’s about calls to boycott the film.
People have the right to boycott things for any reason they choose. That’s part of free speech. The only thing your link showed was free speech in action. Why do you hate free speech?
Do you mean that activist strategies aren’t allowed? That they shouldn’t be a part of free speech? You say this regarding the Sad Puppies activist strategies too?
….
There have been many great comments in this thread. Hampus is completely correct in this thread about what message is being sent and to whom when bigots are put in positions of authority over those they despise.
ETA. As my kids are getting older, I find myself increasingly angry at the thoughtless, theoretical or even supportive remarks about bigots that elide the real life consequences to their targets. It is the 21st century, I will do my best to ensure that my kids don’t have to live with this garbage.
Do you have an example of a person in authority in the SFF community who has committed this racism? Please name names. If you can’t, please stop trying to derail the discussion.
Sorry, I’m just not going to do this. You’ve all been very clear about what the penalties for free speech are. Saldena is a safe example because she’s pretty much outside the community.
Yes. So?
Do you think that taking any action after your polite private note would be evil? If you belonged to an organization and this organization seated that hypothetical imaginary reverse racist misandrist you’re so dreadfully afraid of as a juror, and then had the nerve to ignore the polite note you privately sent explaining your objections – would you think yourself morally obligated to STAY in that organization despite your objections? Would you think the only right thing to do would be to keep silent and pretend you don’t think anything is wrong? And if a fellow member rose up and loudly stated that it was a dreadful thing that this person was being seated as a juror and that he was leaving the organization if this stood and advised others who felt this way to do the same, would you consider this member wicked and wrong, and think he was bullying the organization by expressing his opinion?
People have the right to boycott things for any reason they choose. That’s part of free speech. The only thing your link showed was free speech in action. Why do you hate free speech?
You don’t consider this racism? The activists are very clear that it’s Saldena’s skin tone that they are complaining about.
Do you mean that activist strategies aren’t allowed? That they shouldn’t be a part of free speech? You say this regarding the Sad Puppies activist strategies too?
I do think the Sad/Rabid Puppies have gone overboard. However, I also understand their viewpoint. This is a response to activism against them, and pretty much illustrates the vicious circle you can get into. Riley was a nice guy and stepped down, but Vox Day has responded with activism of his own.
Are you suggesting he’s not entitled to free speech about the Hugo Awards?
The one person who is against free speech here is you.
Your blindness to this kind of racism is an example of your own prejudice.
Since you won’t point to any examples, no one can determine what you are actually talking about. Given your inability to actually cite anything, I think that you brought it up as a means of derailing the discussion, but you don’t have any actual examples to point to.
It’s strange. Whenever I see excerpts from Buis’ site I wondered if it’s coming from a parallel reality. As this conversation continues, I’m amending my theory. It’s this dimension, but one where everything is a platonic ideal. “Free speech”, “unpopular opinion”, “political beliefs”, “transgressive dissidents” – these are principles not to be sullied by reality, or by practicality. They are what they are, and they are not what they are not. This distinction is both clear, and set in stone. Any examples would just dilute their true value, so none will be provided.
When you realise this, you too will understand that actually being a bigot is fine. Taking *any* action beyond a polite note saying that maybe the other person should, y’know, do something is harassment. If you leave because your polite note did nothing, then it’s harassment.
So go forth. Enjoy having brave transgressive ideas while at the same time being completely ensconced in a safe space against any adverse consequence. Because, of course, unpopular viewpoints are precious snowflakes that must be defended no matter what.
People laughed at Einstein …but they also laughed at Bozo the clown
Threatening a boycott is an activist strategy.
Yes. So?
Do you think that taking any action after your polite private note would be evil?
There is a point where activism crosses into bullying and harassment–or even terrorism. Bullys are generally enforcers of an ideology. If you agitate about particular types of racism but refuse to recognize others, then you are working from an ideology.
Sorry, I’m just not going to do this. You’ve all been very clear about what the penalties for free speech are.
Yes, if you speak up you have to be prepared to actually stand by what you say. Your tap dance here about “reverse racists” isn’t particularly impressive given that you aren’t willing to come up with any examples.
You don’t consider this racism?
That’s not the question. The question is is if this is free speech and free association. It is. Even racists have those rights. They aren’t shielded from the consequences of exercising those rights, but they have them.
The activists are very clear that it’s Saldena’s skin tone that they are complaining about.
And they get to complain on that basis. That’s how free speech works. And other people are free to take their criticism seriously or not take their criticism seriously. That’s also how free speech works.
The only one who is against free speech here is you.
Here’s another link on the Saldena controversy discussing the skin tone issue.
Is this racism? Or not?
It’s strange. Whenever I see excerpts from Buis’ site I wondered if it’s coming from a parallel reality.
Personal attack. You’re unable to deal with the arguments.
But at least we got it now that the Sad Puppies are considerered bullies, that the boycott against Tor books was unacceptable, that a polite letter should have been enough from the puppies instead of all blogposts everywhere.
That would have saved so much energy.
Does this have anything to do with Science Fiction or Fantasy? Which award is this about? Nebulas? Dragon*Award? Hugos? What part of fandom is this related to?
Or is this just derailing?
You don’t consider this racism?
That’s not the question. The question is is if this is free speech and free association. It is. Even racists have those rights. They aren’t shielded from the consequences of exercising those rights, but they have them.
Now the issue has shifted again? Everyone has been wanting to discuss racism, but when I try to do it, then we’re back to saying this is an issue about free speech?
I said in the beginning I didn’t want to discuss racism because it was about freedom of speech and freedom of association as principles we need to uphold. We’re in agreement on that point.
So, no one wants to discuss racism any longer? Have I asked too many uncomfortable questions?
I watch about one Hollywood movie per year and even if it weren’t for the Saldana controversy, this movie wouldn’t have made the cut. But as I understand it, people complained about her casting because they thought that casting a light-skinned black woman to play the part of an actual dark-skinned black historical figure was another instance of racism within Hollywood.
It’s not like activists were going around saying that the title character of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter should have been played by a black woman.
As for boycotts being an example of “bullying”: You are free to write your books, and I am free to not read them. My exercise of my freedom may hurt your fee-fees, but it doesn’t count as bullying. Welcome to the free market.
The activists are very clear that it’s Saldena’s skin tone that they are complaining about.
And they get to complain on that basis. That’s how free speech works. And other people are free to take their criticism seriously or not take their criticism seriously. That’s also how free speech works.
But is this racism? Is it bullying and terrorism to threaten Saldena?
No, you have been a classic deraling troll. Trying to do anything but actually discussing David A Riley.
Now the issue has shifted again? Everyone has been wanting to discuss racism, but when I try to do it, then we’re back to saying this is an issue about free speech?
The discussion has always been about free speech. Riley is a racist. That is revealed by his support for racist organizations and various statements he has made. He is free to do that, and no one has disputed his right to be a racist. Others have objected to his being placed in a position as a juror by the HWA. This is an exercise of free speech. Some have said they will disassociate themselves from the HWA is Riley continues to hold that position. That’s free association. That’s free speech. That’s what this has always been about.
I said in the beginning I didn’t want to discuss racism because it was about freedom of speech and freedom of association as principles we need to uphold. We’re in agreement on that point.
No, we aren’t, because you keep calling free speech and free association “bullying”. You don’t actually like free speech. You want free speech so long as you get to set the boundaries for what people are allowed to say and do. That’s not actually being in favor of free speech. That is actually the antithesis of free speech.
So, no one wants to discuss racism any longer? Have I asked too many uncomfortable questions?
The next uncomfortable question you ask will be the first. Until you actually point to who you think the “reverse racists” are serving on juries for awards, you’re just another liar who hates free speech.
But at least we got it now that the Sad Puppies are considerered bullies, that the boycott against Tor books was unacceptable, that a polite letter should have been enough from the puppies instead of all blogposts everywhere.
That would have saved so much energy.
Yes, they are engaged in bullying and harassment behavior. However, the controversy goes way back. Vox Day was not the right person to harass.
Are you suggesting he’s not entitled to free speech about the Hugo Awards?
No. Are you suggesting that a polite note is the only acceptable response in disagreement?
“Here’s another link on the Saldena controversy discussing the skin tone issue.”
Does this have anything to do with Science Fiction or Fantasy? Which award is this about? Nebulas? Dragon*Award? Hugos? What part of fandom is this related to?
Or is this just derailing?
This is a safe space discussion of reverse racism. I’ve yet to get an answer on whether this is racism. If this same question rose in the SFF community, would everyone here rush to Saldena’s defense, or is there only concern about racism from whites?
But is this racism?
That is entirely beside the point. Have the protestors of the film been given jury positions by an organization?
Is it bullying and terrorism to threaten Saldena?
None of the articles you have linked to say that she has been threatened. Do you have evidence she has been threatened?
This is a safe space discussion of reverse racism.
Except it isn’t since you are incapable of actually pointing to an example of reverse racism. Until you actually point to someone in the SFF community who is a “reverse racist” and explain why, you’re just another liar trying to derail the conversation.
I’ve yet to get an answer on whether this is racism.
Because that’s not the issue being discussed, and never has been. I’m starting to think that the problem is that you simply don’t understand the conversation well enough to meaningfully participate.
Oh awesome, could you please share with the rest of the class what activism Larry was acting against with the first SP campaign – aka Get Larry a Hugo?
Was it that he was merely nominated as one of the five best up and coming authors one year and didn’t win by a landslide? Beukes (one of my current favourite authors) also didn’t win that year and guess what?! She didn’t start a four year campaign of unrivalled stupidity!
And what activism, pray tell, is Teddy railing against? That his good friend Larry got one of his shitty stories put on the ballot one year and, by mass consensus of the worldcon-going, Hugo-nominating fans, was found severely wanting?
“So, no one wants to discuss racism any longer? Have I asked too many uncomfortable questions?”
No, you have been a classic deraling troll. Trying to do anything but actually discussing David A Riley.
So the discussion really is about him, and not about principles of free speech and free association?
Again, I’m making the point that HWA was not allowed free association in this case. They were bullied into reversing their stand by activists taking a stand against a certain kind of racism. Because Riley is fairly obscure, I have concerns that assumptions about his racism have been part of the issue.
Not answering my question. If you belonged to an organization who is doing things you honestly think are wrong – like, say, seating your hypothetical reverse racist misandrist as a juror for an award – would you think it wrong for YOU to speak any objection in public if your private objections are ignored? Would you feel yourself obligated to remain in the organization as a member of good standing – or, if you do leave, to leave quietly without a public hint of WHY you’re leaving? And if someone else DID decide to loudly express their objections (that you agree with) in public, and to say that they would leave the organization if this sort of thing went on and that others who thought the same should do the same, would you consider him a bully? Does your blog (which I hasten to add I do not know, nor plan to) adhere to this policy of absolute ladylike public silence and conformity on things you disagree strongly with, and labelling of ALL those who don’t keep that silence as bullies? Or is activism only bullying when it’s in the service of causes you disagree with?
I’m not sure what “safe space” is supposed to mean in this context. Perhaps the author believes that the phrase functions as some kind of talisman, like a cross raised before a vampire, preventing “SJWs” from saying things that might hurt her feelings.
Are you suggesting he’s not entitled to free speech about the Hugo Awards?
No. Are you suggesting that a polite note is the only acceptable response in disagreement?
Politeness and respect for the other person’s viewpoint are never wrong, and it’s easy to cross into bullying behavior. What would you suggest?
There is no such thing as “reverse racism”. It is plain racism, regardless of skincolour of victim.
So you want to derail the discussion to talking about if the moviemakers were racists because they put on skindarkening makeup on an actress because they didn’t think her dark enough. What the hell has this to do with SFF? What does it even have to do with safespaces??
It is obvious you don’t even know what the expression means.
@Lela E. Buis
Firstly, I was mocking your ideas, not you personally. Try not to dodge out of dealing with it by playing the overly-sensitive card.
Secondly, I’ll deal with the argument when you actually make one. Currently all you have are a mish-mash of claims and gut feelings. Put them together into something vaguely practical and reality based, and then we’ll see.
Yes. Some people have tried to derail from that, but as it isn’t a free speech issue, that part is irrelevant.
So the discussion really is about him, and not about principles of free speech and free association?
It is about free speech and free association as applied to the case of Riley and the HWA.
Again, I’m making the point that HWA was not allowed free association in this case.
And you’re simply dead wrong. They could have continued to associate with Riley if they wanted to. In your Saldena example, note that there are people who are criticizing her and people standing by her. That’s how free speech works.
They were bullied into reversing their stand by activists taking a stand against a certain kind of racism.
They weren’t bullied. You don’t seem to know what the word means. You certainly don’t seem to know how free speech works. Other people expressing their free speech rights to try to persuade someone to change their position is not bullying.
Because Riley is fairly obscure, I have concerns that assumptions about his racism have been part of the issue.
You mean his well-documented support for racist political causes and vocal support for racism?
But is this racism?
That is entirely beside the point. Have the protestors of the film been given jury positions by an organization?
You’re trying to derail the discussion on racism now by going back to the question of HWA. The two are separate questions.
Death threats for Saldena were apparently on Instagram.
http://madamenoire.com/617635/shes-not-responsible-nina-simones-daughter-comes-to-zoe-saldanas-defense/
Yes, it is always the racists that are harassed, isn’t it? You will always take a stand for every racist and bigot you can find?
Were they made by anyone in the SFF community? Or is this more derailing?
It has everything to do with the content of speech since it’s the content of his speech people are responding to.
That seems like a hard and fast line, unless…
So there are occasions when one should work to get them fired. Right. And of course that’s not what happened here. He didn’t get fired from anything. Nobody got fired. To resolve if what happened here was right or wrong one really needs to examine what happened and why closely, not go summoning the ghosts of Klu Klux Klan past. I might even agree that it was wrong, but your continued dismissal of what he has said and done suggests that you’re more interested in imposing a principle rather than finding out which principle applies. Principles are no bloody good to anyone if they’re being randomly imposed on poorly-understood situations, and you do not seem to be interested in understanding the situation.
Yes this is how we know that people with good intentions are the real evil in this world and racists are climbing the stairway to heaven, so shut up people with good intentions and carry on racists.
@Lela E. Buis
Nothing in that article says that Saldana was getting threats, Instagram or otherwise.
Damn reality, sullying your perfect narrative again!
Nobody here is condoning death threats against either Saldana or Riley.
Hampus, I think you’re derailing Ms. Buis’s derailment.
Politeness and respect for the other person’s viewpoint are never wrong,
Actually I think respect for racism is wrong, so I guess the conversation ends there.
@Seth
But don’t you see – activism is equal to harassment, and death threats are equal to harassment, ergo all activism is death threats! The actual prevalence of those threats is irrelevant, as it’s about the principles!
I’m getting too many responses to answer, so I’ll state my position again. I didn’t check in here to discuss racism or Riley’s past. Instead, I’m concerned about the principles involved in hounding particular individuals who express transgressive ideas. This bullying and harassment are meant to silence particular viewpoints, while others are allowed free expression.
Any discussion about racism or Riley’s particular background are only sidelines to this question–there are a number of other examples recorded on the Internet–all you have to do is look for them. In response to pressure to discuss Riley and the issue of racism, I have asked a number of questions that are now being attacked, which I think exposes ideology and bigotry in the discussion.
On the issue of “free speech” we may have to agree to disagree. I do have a few last questions, though. Does bullying qualify as free speech? Should we protect bullying comments as free speech? What are the consequences? What if someone commits suicide over it? Is there any mechanism in our society for free speech to counter bullying (as has been suggested)?
I completely agree. Death threats against Riley would be wrong and wicked and should be punished. Fortunately, AFAIK, none have been made, so the question is pretty irrelevant to the current discussion.
I would also say that racism is not polite. Maybe if you are not the target of bigotry then it (superficially) appears to be polite. Mr. Riley advocating for anyone darker than him to be deported is not something that I would call polite. It’s a threat using civil words but still a threat.
Politeness and respect for the other person’s viewpoint are never wrong,
Actually I think respect for racism is wrong, so I guess the conversation ends there.
But the question was about how to complain, say to the HWA. You think it’s appropriate to send them a hate filled rant because you disagree with their policy?
Nothing in that article says that Saldana was getting threats, Instagram or otherwise.
Damn reality, sullying your perfect narrative again!
Check the comments.
They’re being kind, because equating black feminism with racism is kinda dickish. Besides all that horseshit about reverse racism, you don’t get to dictate to people what they get angry about and what they respond to. If you think there’s something they should respond to, make your case, just don’t cry double standards if you don’t get anyone but racists and MRAs and gamergaters rushing to your cause. Consider instead that your cause might be horseshit.
This, by the way, is whataboutery. I don’t know if the term is used much on the other side of the Atlantic.