In the last blog about social issues, I commented on David Gerrold’s essay ”Humanity’s R&D Department: Science Fiction.” where he discusses the requirement to virtue signal in order to preserve your reputation in the SFF community. My response was that this prevents independent thinking, or even any kind of reasonable discussion about the current direction of the publishing community. I also mentioned that it was an example of “groupthink” where a desire for conformity leads to dysfunctional outcomes. I’m sure a lot of people will disagree about this, so let’s look at some examples:
- Readers recently complained on the Tor website about K. Arsenault Rivera appropriating Asian culture in her recently published novel The Tiger’s Daughter. This fell into silence when some more perceptive individuals pointed out that Rivera isn’t white. I gather that means it’s an attack that should be reserved for white people.
- Writer Jenny Trout led a child rape and racism campaign against Fionna Man for writing a fantasy novel titled Thomas Jefferson’s Mistress about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. The campaign succeeded in getting the book removed from book shelves, but then it turned out that Man is an activist African American woman writing about her own cultural history.
- Speaking about the results, author N.K. Jemisin complained about the 2013 SFWA election in her Guest of Honor speech at the convention Continuum in Australia, “Imagine if ten percent of this country’s population was busy making active efforts to take away not mere privileges,” she said, “not even dignity, but your most basic rights. Imagine if ten percent of the people you interacted with, on a daily basis, did not regard you as human.” This seems like a stretch as an attack on the SFWA, but other people piled on regardless.
Generally virtue signaling provokes an avalanche of “me, too” responses, some of which can turn into vicious attacks like the one against Fionna Man. This is where the conformity problem comes into play. Everyone knows they need to publicly express certain views (as Gerrold pointed out), so once an issue is suggested, they pile on the opportunity to show their conformity. This is regardless of whether they have put any thought into whether the attack is justified or what effect it might really have in the long term. Some people really don’t care.
Last year there was an argument at File770 where posters discussed freedom of expression and how it should be used to dictate morality. Posters apparently supported the idea that it’s fine to attack people regardless of the accuracy of your claims because this publicizes you own views (virtue signaling) and also indicates what views should be considered morally wrong and unacceptable to the public. This also assumes any injury done by the attack is socially advantageous because it will intimidate others who might be tempted to express the “wrong” views. There was no concern about what kind of personal damage this does to individuals who are erroneously attacked.
Meanwhile, Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, says in his new book Principles: Life and Work that independent thinking is the most important principle for an “idea meritocracy” to rebuild our society in a better way. What should we do about that?
Kathodus
Dec 20, 2017 @ 01:32:27
N B 4 Phantom’s virtue signaling about the “usual suspects.”
LikeLike
Lela E. Buis
Dec 20, 2017 @ 08:47:53
Eh? Do you have comment on the idea?
LikeLike
Kathodus
Dec 20, 2017 @ 13:42:17
I’ve been avoiding commenting on these threads because I feel your initial post about the subject jumped completely off the rails into paranoia. The logical leap required to transform Gerrold’s description of SFF into a prescription for SFF fandom is so huge that I can’t imagine we’re operating off the same basic premises. I have a hard time believing you or Phantom sincerely believe Gerrold was threatening people who refuse to “virtue signal,” and one major thing I’ve learned from the various political kerfuffles over the years is that arguing with people who are being disingenuous never accomplishes anything but getting into a flame war. My comment was regarding Phantom’s repeatedly claiming the “usual suspects” are not showing up to argue this because they are frightened of being run out of SFF fandom, a rather silly statement. Both you and Phantom are intelligent people, and I’ve occasionally had fruitful conversations with you, but you both seem convinced of the existence of shady liberal cabals, which veers into conspiracy theory, a subject I’ve never been all that keen on.
LikeLike
Lela E. Buis
Dec 20, 2017 @ 15:35:58
Kathodus, I don’t think this was paranoia with the Gerrold post, only questions about what he meant. There were some troubling undercurrents to his essay, especially the way it started off on one subject and then went off the rails onto virtue signaling. Why is this so strongly on his mind?
LikeLiked by 2 people
thephantom182
Dec 22, 2017 @ 12:23:19
Kathodus said: “I have a hard time believing you or Phantom sincerely believe Gerrold was threatening people who refuse to “virtue signal…”
I know you do. You have a hard time believing a lot of things that I find self evident.
Tell me sir, where is Greg Hullender’s freedom of expression today? Can he give an -honest- review now after being kicked off the Locus board… for giving honest reviews? The complaint was not that Hullender wasn’t in support of Trans issues, is was that he wasn’t supporting enough. Purity spiral.
He’s on -your- team, Kathodus, you are one of the Usual Suspects who has been extremely conspicuous by your absence from supporting YOUR GUY. Who are the only people sticking up for Rocket Stack? Puppies. We don’t even like Rocket Stack. Where were you all this time?
Gerrold’s essay was notable because he articulated the requirement that SFF authors must articulate their support for social justice in their work. It is no longer enough to be an ally, one must actively advocate. I did not perceive Gerrold’s letter as a threat, more of a statement on the nature of SFF in the Big Five universe. An accurate statement, I might add.
Why do you think Sad Puppies existed, Kathodus? Authors couldn’t get published, couldn’t even get agents, unless they actively and skillfully signaled progressive views. No author could win an award in the Official Fan Award Season, no matter how huge their sales, without ticking off all the right boxes.
LikeLike
Doris V. Sutherland
Dec 22, 2017 @ 13:10:52
Phantom: do you really think no-one in the Puppysphere would give their opponents a fandom excommunication if they had the chance? Right now, the Castalia/Superversive circle is mounting a campaign against Cat Rambo, including a push to have her removed as president of SFWA. Her crime? Getting into this exchange with an alt-righter on Twitter:
https://www.twitter.com/LibertyAlerts/status/941197673398497280
Her opponents are trying to make it look as though she’s defending the paedophile Marion Zimmer Bradley, but she’s clearly not. She’s attacking an alt-right rando who was trying to use Bradley as a stick to beat her with.
This isn’t an isolated occurance. I could point to further examples of this behaviour. In fact, I’ve been on the receiving end of it myself.
Think it was unfair that Greg was removed from the Locus panel? So do I. But I also think it’d be unfair if this campaign to remove Cat Rambo from the SFWA presidency for her tweet were to succeed. Do you?
LikeLike
Kathodus
Dec 22, 2017 @ 13:14:36
@Phantom – I have been mostly silent on the RSR kerfuffle because I am ambivalent about it – a lot of people’s feelings have been hurt, Hullender’s included, and I don’t see the need to add to any pile-ons.
Where I think you and Buis are going off the deep end is when you attribute this latest kerfuffle/attack to some sort of shady intra-fan political dealings, and then tying Gerrold’s essay in to that conspiracy theory. Occam’s Razor applies here.
And I don’t particularly have a “side.” I tend to be to the left of Mussolini, so yeah, I have a hard time getting along with Rabid Puppies and/or the Alt-Right, but I don’t view the world through a sports/contest lens. I see very little good in the RSR kerfuffle – I see stubborn insensitivity, pride, and exaggerated outrage – but I don’t see a conspiracy to drag someone down because they’ve achieved some renown within fandom any more than I see a purposeful campaign to further marginalize the marginalized.
As far as why the Sad Puppy movement was started… We’ve been over this a stupendous number of times, but as Correia stated in his opening Sad Puppy salvo back in 2013, the Sad Puppies were brought into existence to get Correia nominated for a Hugo. There have been many retcons of this initial mission statement, but that was always at the core.
LikeLike
Lela E. Buis
Dec 22, 2017 @ 15:31:25
Kathodus, no one is going to dispute that the Sad/Rabid Puppies meant to get particular people nominated for a Hugo. The issue is that the Puppies are considered a conspiracy instead of a legitimate fan movement to nominate favorite authors. The resistance to “outsiders” driving the nominations suggests the Hugos are a closely held award given out by a small, select group of people that don’t want anybody messing with their business.
LikeLike
Lela E. Buis
Dec 22, 2017 @ 15:49:37
Doris, as I see it, there’s error on both sides. This is an example of the same dis-conversation happening in the greater political sphere, where both sides scream slurs at one another in an argument that no one can win.
In the exchange above, Difster has slurred the SFWA, suggesting the organization shelters pedophiles, and in return Cat has slurred Moore, whose interest in adolescents is technically ephebophilia, and not pedophilia. This ramps up the battle, pushing the idea that we are now going to criminalize all sexual misconduct, including complicity, on the same level. There are more reasonable methods of communication, but everybody would rather fight instead.
LikeLike
David VanDyke
Dec 20, 2017 @ 13:06:22
Virtue signaling is common to all tribes, not just the modern left. It’s a way of affirming you’re part of the tribe and will put the tribe’s interests above your own.
That’s why it’s the initially harmless but insidious first step toward groupthink–again, which afflicts all sorts of tribes. Watch teenage cliques or worldwide soccer hooligans and you will see it in full-blown vicious action. We see it in the politics of both (all) parties–toe the party line or else.
Virtue signalling within the SFF community is often grounds for eye-rolling contempt, but it’s less a cause than a symptom of what I see as a deeper problem: the “morality” of victimhood within modern society.
By definition, victims of anything need help and deserve sympathy. They don’t however, deserve some automatic moral high ground that grants them the right to weaponize it against anyone they oppose. Yet that’s what’s happening to our society now, and is exactly what happened in the run-up to many violent revolutions throughout history. The French? Kowtow to the radical antimonarchists or get the Guillotine. The Bolsheviks? Red or dead. Naziism? Speaking against the Party could earn a bullet. Mao and Kim? Cults of personality that saw millions imprisoned and “re-educated” by brutal forced labor. Those are merely some obvious example of where this can lead. Fortunately I think western civilization is unlikely to go that far, but the danger remains.
In the US we’ve seen both left and right with this heavy virtue-signaling. Flying a Confederate flag from the back of your coal-roller is just as much virtue signalling as a COEXIST sticker on a Subaru. I’d suggest the one difference I see, and it’s mainly a difference of degree, is that the right is currently less likely to throw each under the bus for insufficient ideological purity than the left.
It’s no different within SFF.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lela E. Buis
Dec 20, 2017 @ 15:40:39
Thanks for a very perceptive post, David. The problem with groupthink is that people don’t seem to be aware of how they’re being forced into it until it’s too late. Remember what the definition said about dysfunctional outcomes, i.e. lots of people dying during the historical events you mention. Current German policy, for example, defends carefully against the kind of thought that led to the Nazi takeover, which had the support of the German public at the time. It’s seen as a moment of national insanity.
LikeLike
Shadowdancer Duskstar / Cutelildrow
Dec 20, 2017 @ 18:29:03
They don’t however, deserve some automatic moral high ground that grants them the right to weaponize it against anyone they oppose.
Saying that they are not and should not be Saint Victimhood (of the day) however will get the socjus zombie zerg swarming your way. Not that getting the SJZ swarming toward any target is hard by any stretch of imagination, since they usually find rather frequent reasons to swarm and destroy.
That they do it so frequently is what will wear out in time – and I do not see that as a good thing. Because once they’ve emotionally exhausted large amounts of the populace, it’s hard to gain the proper attention to REAL problems, and real issues, versus the small ones that the SJZ swarms tend to focus on almost exclusively. It’s this that erodes into the result that David above mentioned – revolutions. I gather that we’re all hoping that this will not be one of the bloody ones, but I do not think that it’ll be a choice that will be ours, especially since SJ zealotry and zombiehood is a plague that is infesting more than just SFF/pop culture.
LikeLike
Lela E. Buis
Dec 21, 2017 @ 14:54:26
Zombies? Ha. That’s really funny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thephantom182
Dec 22, 2017 @ 19:27:10
Doris Sutherland said: “Phantom: do you really think no-one in the Puppysphere would give their opponents a fandom excommunication if they had the chance?”
Obviously they would. That is the whole raison d’être of the Rabids. They feel their cause is just, their aim is true, and God is on their side. Just like the other side does.
Case in point, what’s the difference between the attack on Cat Rambo by the Rabids, and the attack on Rocket Stack? Two witch hunts with the goal of shutting people up. Two objectionable groups, reducing the freedom of everyone for political gain. Neither side is any friend of mine. May they all contract boils.
One group however is worse, because they don’t just go after their enemies, they go after their friends.
“Think it was unfair that Greg was removed from the Locus panel? So do I. But I also think it’d be unfair if this campaign to remove Cat Rambo from the SFWA presidency for her tweet were to succeed. Do you?”
I think that you boys and girls messed with the wrong guy when SFWA kicked Vox Day out for political reasons. He used to be nobody, but now you’ve made him Somebody. The problem you have is that he’s using the same weapons on you that you used on him. They’re really effective. They work.
I think if Matt Lauer can lose his million-dollar-a-year job over an unsupported allegation, Cat Rambo can lose hers over a tweet. I think fairness no longer has any part in the discussion. Any kind of collegiality or civilized standard of behavior is over.
And given all that, Doris, where is your freedom of expression now? The Alt-Right wants your blood because you’re a Lefty, and the Left wants it too because you’re not Lefty enough. Who you gonna call?
LikeLike
thephantom182
Dec 22, 2017 @ 20:07:11
Kathodus said: “As far as why the Sad Puppy movement was started… We’ve been over this a stupendous number of times…”
Yes, and every time you miss the point. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that -everything- you said is true, and Correia was in it for the Hugo.
What did -I- get? Why am -I- in it?
Answer, in case you haven’t been paying attention, is freedom of expression. I don’t like forced speech. I don’t like politics hijacking my entertainment. I don’t like seeing a guy like Correia being excluded on pure politics.
So I voted. I got to participate. About time.
Kathodus said: “Where I think you and Buis are going off the deep end is when you attribute this latest kerfuffle/attack to some sort of shady intra-fan political dealings, and then tying Gerrold’s essay in to that conspiracy theory.”
Gerrold’s essay describes the general case. Hullender’s shirtstorm is the specific example of the general case. He’s not Left enough, he’s not signalling properly, so under the bus he goes before he has a chance to influence the all-important Locus list.
LikeLike
Lela E. Buis
Dec 22, 2017 @ 22:38:10
Thanks for the discussion. Stay tuned, all. Another blog on this will be posting in about half an hour.
LikeLike