So John Scalzi, a noted science fiction writer and president of the Science Fiction Writers of America/SFWA comments on my blog. Yes this is a big fish, president of the SFWA. Oooooh.
Scalzi’s tweets were in response to – and supportive of – Scott Edelman’s dismissive tweeting on my blog, which I replied to in detail in my second article on Edelman (Edelman’s and Scalzi’s tweets were in response to my first article on Edelman).
So here are John Scalzi’s tweets (from March 2nd) with Edelman’s reply (that I have responded to in my previous article):
John Scalzi @scalzi
@scottedelman Relating to that last tweet: Did I miss something exciting?
3:50 PM – 2 Mar 12 via TweetDeck · Details
Scott Edelman @scottedelman
@scalzi On the one hand, I don’t want to give this guy bandwidth. But on the other hand: seasonoftheredwolf.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/jew…
4:05 PM – 2 Mar 12 via web ·
So here is Scalzi’s pathetic tweet in response:
John Scalzi @scalzi
@scottedelman The fellow seems to be of the sort where the rational response is to point and laugh.
As with all my other twitter critics, such as Edelman himself, Lavie Tidhar, Tobias Buckell and Charles Stross notably, there is no content, no substance to Scalzi’s incredibly lame tweet. Scalzi and co are going out of the way to prove that with twitter, the medium is the message. Going by Scalzi’s tweet you wouldn’t have the vaguest clue what I was writing about at all in the first pertinent Scott Edelman article.
It’s as I wrote in response to similar lame ad hominem tweets from Tobias Buckell and Charles Stross:
Going by Buckell’s tweet ‘seriously whack shit’ (and Stross’s tweets likewise for that matter), nobody would know what on earth I was actually writing about. I mean I could be writing about calling for the excavation of the lost ruins of Atlantis under Antarctica, the invasion of China, bombing the Martians, endorsing some David Icke conspiracy on alien lizards in the White House feeding on human sacrifices, bringing back eugenics or remaking Heaven’s Gate going by Stross’s and Buckell’s fact-free tweets. Simply lame.
Same goes for Scalzi’s and Edelman’s tweets my way.
Scalzi pretends to be removed from the silliness, superficiality and polarity in contemporary political discourse. He pretends to be removed from the more odious political nuttery of both the Left and Right. He pretends a voice of reason, moderation and the middle path. Pretends is the key word there. By going to bat for Edelman, Scalzi is going to bat for the genre thought police (inadvertently or not), with all their pushing of the thoughtcrime of ‘Islamophobia’, their apologetics, whitewashing and molly-coddling of reactionary Islam. He is going to bat for the genre thought police’s denial and wilful silence of extreme anti-Semitism from within the genre community (at best). Remember Edelman was tweeting initially in defense of Rose Fox, who had tweeted a dismissal my way over my mockery of Tobias Buckell and Charles Stross. The latter two had initially dismissed me over my ‘Cathy Valente and the Genre Thought Police‘ article. Got all that?
John Scalzi: The fellow seems to be of the sort where the rational response is to point and laugh.
Point and laugh at what exactly, Scalzi? Why don’t you give us a sentence or two? Oh well I guess twitter ain’t the medium for that. Twitter is the medium for superficial and thoughtless nothingness and fluff, so it’s appropriate my critics choose such a forum (twitter a symptom of the decline and collapse of our civilization if there was one). No blog article directed my way, Scalzi? I’m not worth the time? It’s beneath the president of the SFWA? Oh what a pity. At least Tim Lieder and Nick Mamatas could say something on their blogs about the red wolf blogger (no matter how incoherent, dishonest and misrepresentative). There was also Chesya ‘If this is the Thought Police Count me In’ Burke before that.
Point and laugh at what in that Edelman article, Scalzi (or any other articles for that matter)? What EXACTLY? Hey why bother with content when you are playing to the peanut gallery, all that’s needed is bluff and bluster. And with the peanut gallery (that includes the likes of Edelman, Mamatas, Tidhar, Valente, Buckell, Graham Raven, Laura A Gilman and Charles Stross), all that is needed are lame, pathetic and utterly baseless ad hominems. Scalzi knows the tired routine, he’s a loyal soldier. His is not to reason why, his is but to repeat the MO of the genre thought police.
Point and laugh at my explicit allusions to the deafening silence of the PC genre Left to anti-Semitism from within the genre commmunity? (inclusive of Holocaust Revisionism from CONSERVATIVE genre pros to the most vicious Judenhass from a multiple award-winning ‘rock star’ genre communist) Laugh at that? Because that’s what is alluded to – in part – in my Edelman article that you respond to with this, “the rational response is to point and laugh“.
Or do you beg to differ re the charge I make on China Mieville’s anti-Semitism (evidenced by nine articles now)? If you do, can you let us know? In fact can you let us know where you stand on Mieville’s prejudicial status re Jewry, yes he is or no he is not anti-Semitic? If you had bothered to read this blog’s last few articles (and even appreciated the Edelman article you so mocked), you should have guessed that your tweets would culminate in an article exactly like this one (given who you are) where I would ask you this exact question; and where I predict that along with SF’s Court Jewdom you will slink away on your yellow belly and not answer the question. Oh you didn’t see it coming? Really? You people really don’t take anything in, at all. I don’t write this for you and your ilk’s benefit, that would be crazy. I hope some people out there appreciate it and *get it*.
Actually as I make clear in my previous article, Edelman, who even by the standards of the genre Thought Police really ain’t the brightest, really comes closest to answering the question forthrightly (in fact one could argue he did answer it, even if inadvertently) and no not in a good way! Why don’t you John Scalzi, being president of the SFWA really set the precedent here – I’m sure it will make waves – and actually answer the question …
I’m betting you are – aside from Edelman – as with Nir Yaniv, Laura Anne Gilman, Charles Stross, Tobias Buckell and Rose Fox who I explicitly asked this question of, a yellow belly (Fox like Edelman totters, oblivious). You ain’t got the backbone. Like them you will slink away. Go ahead prove me wrong. Before tweeting an answer, make sure to read at least some of the nine articles on Mieville at this blog. That way you can’t claim ignorance. Not that you will tweet an answer, (or even read the Mieville articles most probably) hey Scalzi? That’s ’cause you are YELLOW, not so?
I guess when you once tweeted a long while back now:
@scalzi John Scalzi
Uncomfortable that anti-semitism is apparently the New Hotness. You know who ELSE thought anti-semitism was cool, right?
… you didn’t really mean it. Or you meant it, but not to apply to the professional genre community. After all that would mean actually having the courage of your convictions! God forbid. I mean to call out any professional genre person who is unequivocally guilty of “the New Hotness”, BY NAME, well we couldn’t have that now. It’s not polite, don’t you know? Either that or you don’t even have the vaguest clue what real anti-Semitism/the New Hotness actually is in this day and age. Not even vaguely. In which case you ain’t the brightest (well join the club, it’s a very big club) and your tweet in this respect is simply a joke.
“the rational response is to point and laugh”
Is that to my allusions to the genre Thought Police’s enforcement of the thoughtcrime of ‘Islamophobia’, and my mockery and disdain for them on this front? So clearly you IMPLY endorsement of the PC insanity of our age, the cultural relativist idiocy, egg-shell walking, appeasement and head in the sand cowardice re reactionary Islam and its fruits. You clearly thus IMPLY that anybody who calls this out for the mad appeasement and willful ignorance that it is (associated with moral and cultural relativism), is irrational and unintentionally laughable.
There is nothing else that my Edelman article is about, neither explicitly nor implicitly. So when you tweet your lamebrain tweets my way, you can only be mocking me for TWO THINGS:
One – my explicit allusion to the deafening silence and sweeping under the carpet extreme anti-Semitism from within the professional genre community.
Two – my mockery and disdain for the enforcement of the PC Orwellian thoughtcrime of ‘Islamophobia’, a thoughtcrime invented by Muslim-radicals-who-pretend-they-are-moderate in the West to silence their informed critics with the charge of bigotry. A thoughtcrime vocally supported by their useful idiot appeasers in the West, on the Left and Right. Many of these Western appeasers to radical-Islam-that-pretends-moderateness are guilty of the New Hotness of Judenhass, as you call it Scalzi. A good (or bad!) example from the SF genre community in this regard is China Mieville himself.
In which case John Scalzi – by implication – you have made your stance on controversies like the Elizabeth Moon Muslim ‘citizenship’ affair (if you haven’t already) very clear. Your position is to stand with the genre Thought Police – Catherynne Valente, Nick Mamatas, K Tempest Bradford, Lavie Tidhar, Farah Mendlesohn, Will Shetterly, Abigail Nussbaum, Ian McDonald, Warren Ellis, Jeff VanderMeer, N K Jemisin, Chesya Burke, Jason Sanford, Tobias Buckell, J Damask (aka Joyce Chng), Jim C Hines, China Mieville and plenty plenty others.
Don’t worry Scalzi, I know you may well find the points I make very difficult to comprehend, even though they are fairly simple. That’s because you need to be outside of the herd mind to get it, and you ain’t – despite what you may like to believe.
Scalzi and gang: Don’t forget to make use of the StopZionConIslamophobeBloggers twitter software (that I elucidate on in the previous article) to effectively and devastatingly rebut and refute the points I make in this article (if you choose to tweet on it at all).
An example of one of the software’s entirely effective and randomly generated tweets:
Loon bigot loon bigot nasty nasty little irrational man. I’m still laughing at you, you Limbaugh clone. So there!
Such a tweet will leave the genre thought police herd mesmerized in awestruck wonderment and admiration of your demolition of the red wolf blogger. You can count on it. StopZionConIslamophobeBloggers software never disappoints.