Not a Penny for Tribute

Part of an ongoing conversation. A reader with the draconian name of Takashi Kurita has some comments in the form of questions about the call to prayer and fasting I wrote here:

Hmm. So, how is this an example of why you quit the SWFA, again? Everything shown here is about Mr. Beale and how he was (rightly) ejected from the organization for using it’s official publication channels improperly.

Nothing you talked about in this post has anything to do with you. I also recall no “apoplectic rage” from any Sci-Fi authors that I follow, regarding your leaving the organization. I’m venture to say that hardly anyone even noticed that you quit.

Are you saying that the entire reason for your leaving was on behalf of him? You left in protest, in other words? Since you didn’t even participate in the organization anyway, it’s not much of a protest at all.


Just on the slim chance that your questions are honestly meant rather than rhetorical, allow me to answer them:

1. This speech is a prime example of unprofessional public demeanor, because it subordinates the craft of writing to the political crusade of political correctness; and under Mr Scalzi’s leadership such unprofessionalism was encouraged rather than discouraged.

The undisguised bigotry and hatred in this speech is shocking; the vulgarity is merely icing on the cowpaddy.

I am not claiming SFWA wrote this speech or endorsed it. I am claiming this is an example of the philosophy of political correctness, which is a philosophy of breathtakingly shameless antichristian antimale anticaucasian zealotry, which now animates enough of the science fiction community to have infected SFWA, which has both unofficially and officially endorsed it.

At that point, they are no longer an organization which serves the purposes, primarily professional, for which I joined and for whose sake I paid dues.

2. Your comment that this speech somehow serves as evidence that the expulsion of Mr. Beale was rightly done is gratuitous. In logic, a gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied. Your comment is also irrelevant.

I was not offering the Guest of Honor speech as an exhibit of the justice or injustice of the expulsion the speech mentions, but as an example of the shameless unprofessional demeanor and behavior of a zealot giving the speech. The speech is not unambiguous; it responds to the honor of being named a guest of honor by calling for the condemnation and expulsion of members of the community for thinking the wrong thoughts, for what Orwell called thoughtcrimes.

In order to hide the nature of the call, the thoughtcrimes are called violent crimes, and the hyperbolic nature of the label preemptively defended from criticism by the writer — a professional writer, mind you — confessing her inability to find other apt words.

This is not an example of the professional courtesy one craftsman offers to another in his same guild.

Imagine if the guest of honor at a cabinet maker’s convention had called for the expulsion of all Monophysites, or the expulsion of all the Jews, or all the Adulterers, from their ranks, or some other political or social faction unrelated to carpentry.

3. I am puzzled by the statement that nothing in the post has anything to do with me. It seems to be logically irrelevant. Logically irrelevant means that even if the statement were true, it would have nothing to do with the topic being discussed, which is whether or not SFWA, and the science fiction community in general, has been poisoned by political correctness. I am offering this speech as an exhibit to show that it has been.

The statement is also simply (and obviously) not true.

4. I am puzzled by the statement that you recall no apoplectic rage greeted my announcement of my resignation of my membership. It seems to be logically irrelevant. Logically irrelevant means that even if the statement were true, it would have nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Even if the statement were relevant, you are not in a position to recall any message of rage directed against me privately. I have never shown you my emails, nor do I print comments containing swearwords here in my journal.

5. I am puzzled by the statement that no one noticed my announcement of my resignation of my membership. It seems to be logically irrelevant.

The current president of SFWA wrote me the same afternoon as the announcement was made, and I exchanged polite emails with the former president of SFWA, with whom I hope to remain on good terms.

You perhaps do not understand what professionalism is. I did not announce my resignation because I expected anyone to recognize my name, but only because it would have been not in keeping with the demands of honor not to set forth the reasons.

But, again, even if it were the case that no one noticed, that would have no bearing on the topic currently under discussion.

Forgive me for making a personal remark, but you seem to have difficulty staying on topic. If you think as sloppily as you write, it is small wonder you are confused about what was said and why.

6. No, I am not saying the entire reason for leaving was on behalf of Mr. Beale. Nothing I said or implied could be taken to mean that. This is the informal logical error called ‘the strawman argument’ where you pretend that I am supporting a position different from and weaker than my real position. Like all informal logical errors, it is, once again, irrelevant.

My reasons for leaving have been stated publicly and clearly; you may draw what conclusions you may from them once you read them. I am not sure what purpose, even a rhetorical purpose, is being served by claiming my motives were other than stated.

Logically, if I am so obscure a writer than you have no concern for my reasons for leaving, then you do not know me well enough to know my history of service and support in the guild. For example, you do not know how long I was a member, or what dues I paid, nor whether SFWA ever honored me with a Nebula nomination. If you do know this information, then I am not obscure to you.

I agree that an obscure writer such as I can form no effective core of protest; but, obviously, that was not my purpose. My purpose was to depart from an organization which had become corrupt, lest even a mite of dues from my hand give aid and comfort to friends who declare all honest men their enemies, and cry war against everyone unwilling to bow the knee to their filthy idol of Political Correctness.

They will have not a penny from me, not a groat, until they purge this nest of nasty sophomoric vipers from their midst, and return to the sober yet joyful business of writing.

I am baffled that you are so dull that you pretend not to comprehend this. It is the way all gentlemen act. I was not quitting to impress you, nor to influence your opinion, nor any man’s. You are no one to me.

I quit because to remain would dishonor my craft.