David Riley on charges of racism

I thought the issues related to suppression of free speech on File770 were more important than the charges of racism against David Riley that drove the campaign to have him removed from the HWA jury. Since I’m not familiar with Riley’s history, I’ve kept out of the debate about whether he really is “racist” or not based on his position on immigration. However, others have moved to support Riley by investigating the complaints. Here’s an excellent interview with Riley from David Dubrow. Dubrow has also written a perceptive blog about the File770 dustup.

Thanks for the comments on the last couple of blogs, folks. Following up on some of these comments, I’ll plan to investigate a couple more social trends when I can get around to it. Again, Mike Glyer has asked that I note the discussion that took place here at File 770 does not reflect his opinions.

Related to this discussion, I’ve also had an interesting exchange by email about some cities trying to ban particular words, for example “faggot.” This brings a number of other words to mind that would be on the same list. If we try that on for size, how does it feel? What if certain words were criminalized? What if they were criminalized only if said by certain groups? Would that be appropriate?

Totalitarianism, File 770 and suppression of ideas

We like to think that we’ve gotten past all that. This is the US/UK/Europe, after all, founded on principles of freedom. We’re not in any danger of falling under the sway of totalitarian regimes. We have a free and open culture, where immigrants and minorities are welcomed and valued. We have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression safely ensconced in the US Constitution, which means the government can’t legally suppress what we think or what we say. But will that really protect us?

One of the arguments presented by readers at at File770 was that Freedom of Expression meant that public opinion would take care of racist/subversive ideas, shaming and ostracizing anyone who questions public policy on racial or ethnic lines, for example. The premise was that it’s fine to attack people and lobby for their removal on the basis of assumptions about their views because this will publicize and emphasize that some views are morally wrong and unacceptable to the public. This is expected to intimidate others who might be tempted to express similar views.

Because I’m of a certain age, I can recall a previous US administration where questioning of the current president or his policies resulted in immediate shaming on public media by groups supposedly unconnected with the government. Oppose the president, and you’re toast. Was this really public opinion or was it something else? I can also remember another previous administration where the president made extremely risky decisions that brought the country to the edge of nuclear war because of a phenomenon called “groupthink.” This describes when people who are intent on conforming to group values end up making dangerous decision. The current term for this is “virtue signaling” where everyone is expected to signal that they are part of the group, toeing the line and reciting the creed. Is this a good thing, or will it lead to dangerous results?

When I was asked by the readers on File770 if I thought racism was acceptable, I answered that this was a complex subject and that everyone was a racist to a certain extent. This immediately signaled that I wasn’t part of the group, and the discussion degenerated to personal attacks. Suddenly I was dangerous and needed to be ostracized as quickly as possible. My ideas were subversive and needed to be suppressed.

So, was Bradbury right? Will suppression of ideas lead to an eventual conflagration? Or was this just another stupid, hysterical diatribe?

Note: The fact that this discussion took place in the comments section of File770 is no reflection on Mike Glyer who owns the magazine and writes the articles. The readers comments do not represent his views. Read the discussion here. Please see previous blog for more comments on the incident.

Suppression of ideas at File 770

I’ve just had an experience on File770 where a number of people came out very strongly in favor of suppression of ideas, and I’m feeling the need to write something about it. This shouldn’t reflect on the magazine, or on Mike Glyer, who provides an excellent venue. He’s not responsible for the views of his readers.

The initial question was whether David Riley, who had reportedly expressed racist views, should be allowed to serve on the HWA awards panel, but the discussion soon devolved into a fight about whether some ideas should be suppressed for moral reasons. For people of a certain age, this echoes an era when leftists were accused and persecuted as traitors with little or no evidence. It meant that you had to be really careful what you said or wrote, or you could end up “blacklisted” and unable to work, if not in prison. In response, I’d like to review Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.

Guy Montag is a “fireman” on a squad that burns books. These are sniffed out by electronic “hounds” operated by a totalitarian government. Where people have hidden books in their homes, the entire house is burned down. Montag is on assignment to burn a woman’s home. She is defiant and self immolates, burning up with her books. Wondering at her attitude, Montag steals a book. He returns home to his wife and finds that Clarisse, a young neighbor with free-ranging ideas, has disappeared.

Montag is disturbed and tries to discuss the woman’s death with his wife, but she gets angry, thinking his subversive ideas will cause him to lose his job. Mildred insists the woman was to blame for the whole thing because she was hiding books. At work the next day, Montag’s boss tells him that most firemen steal books from time to time, but that they need to be promptly destroyed. Over the next few months, Montag accumulates a stash of stolen books and comes to realize that he knows nothing about what the government is doing, as there are no newspapers and nothing on the media but entertainment. There are signs of a war looming—he sees formations of jets in the sky. One day a fire alarm comes in, and when the squad responds, Montag finds it is his house they are set to burn. His wife has turned him in.

Montag does his duty, burning the house, but then he turns the flamethrower on his boss, burning him up. Montag is attacked by a sniffer hound, but manages to escape. He flees into the countryside, looking for others who have fled, and finds a band led by a man named Granger. As they watch, the city is destroyed by a nuclear bomb, everyone burning up in the conflagration. Granger explains that history is full of repeated falls of civilization, and that it is their job to help rebuild.

The book was published in 1953. Groff Conklin, reviewing for Galaxy, called the novel “among the great works of the imagination.” P. Schuyler Miller, reviewing for Astounding Science Fiction, called it one of Bradbury’s “hysterical diatribes.” Bradbury had previously investigated these ideas in short stories and wrote the novel in 18 days on a rented typewriter. Ironically, Fahrenheit 451 is often found on banned book lists, and words like “abortion” or cursing are redacted when it is used in high school lit classes.

See the next blog for more oomments on the issue.

Investment in the Hugo Awards

Dang, my little traffic counter is tired—Vox Day linked to my last blog. I normally get an uptick when File770 links, but now we see who the real powerhouse is. Thanks to all who stopped by. It’s good to have discussion, although this one got a little off-track.

I read all the comments, here and also on these two respective sites. There are interesting responses. First, I gather that some people have a quite a personal investment in the Hugo Awards. The suggestion I made in the blog that DragonCon had looked at the Hugo controversy and would be in competition turned out more than one knight-errant to defend the Hugo Awards. Steve Davidson wrote a response supporting my position that the Dragon Awards are likely to change the flow of both money and promotion in ways that will undermine the Hugos.

The big question was about what I meant by “the Hugo process where works are winnowed through a narrow review and recommendation system and onto the ballot.” Although the Sad/Rabid Puppies have been severely trashed for their viewpoints, a faction of fandom has looked at their complaints critically and moved to analyze the awards process in response. If you’ve been following the blog, you’ll recall that I’ve featured statistical studies of the awards process for both the Hugos and the Nebulas during the last year. These show that prominent recommendation lists can be used to predict the nominees pretty accurately, and that the awards process is subject to bias. Other studies have shown the lists have limited sources, low diversity and a tendency for repeat appearances. The award winners for both the Hugos and the Nebulas are typically chosen by relatively small groups of individuals that lean to professional writers, editors and publishers. This is what I’m calling a “narrow” process.

I don’t know that you can ever eliminate these problems. People will always need a system to sift through what’s available. One of the main issues is how to work through the sheer number of SFF works published during the year, and another is the fierce competition to use the awards for their promotional value. I expect the Dragon Awards will have similar fairness issues. Plus, you can bet some people are already looking for ways to manipulate the results.