Social Justice in SF&F

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

When I see Brad Torgerson, Vox Day or their followers use acronyms like SJW or CHORF, or anti-puppies using terms like neo-nazis or racists, it's just code words for "somebody you ought to hate", and not a term to describe a concept.

Well, I am sorry I don't fit into your arbitrary box then. Feel free to dismiss their words on the basis that they are demonstrably using those terms as a way to generalize and dismiss others.


I maintain that assuming people are mindless haters merely because they use an acronym is blatant hypocrisy, with the standard level of irony that that entails.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Hmm? What's your point?

That is the kind of relationship to an idea that Liz Lutgendorff seems to object to, at least going by, say, her attack of Mistborn.
Many books portray an unjust society... because they are meant to portray the unjustness. And apparently she finds that "shockingly offensive" too.

MikeB1972's comment (rhetorically) asked if people who liked the Ancillary trilogy meant that they approved of the unjust society depicted in it. The people who like the story may just be in agreement with Breq's increasing disapproval of it. Should we like books portraying an unjust society? Maybe. Are the characters oblivious to the unjustness, are they in favor, are they railing against it, or just feel powerless to affect the unjustness? I'm assuming that matters to LL, to a certain extent, I think it matters to me. I don't know whether LL commented on 1984, but if she finds it shockingly offensive because of the unjust society, she's missing the point.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, I am sorry I don't fit into your arbitrary box then. Feel free to dismiss their words on the basis that they are demonstrably using those terms as a way to generalize and dismiss others.


I maintain that assuming people are mindless haters merely because they use an acronym is blatant hypocrisy, with the standard level of irony that that entails.

When Brad picked an acronym like CHORF (Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics), I don't think it was satire, and I don't think it was meant to portray a concept that was not pejorative. Granted, the people he refers to are generally not in any sort of cohesive organization, but I do think he believes them to be his opposition, and in general, when someone makes up a term for their opposition, there's usually a fair dose of pejorative thrown in. When you're using a hater's term for a another group, you're probably unconsciously picking up some of their bias. Do you think pro-life/pro-choice and anti-abortion/pro-abortion have equivalent connotations?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

When Brad picked an acronym like CHORF (Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics), I don't think it was satire, and I don't think it was meant to portray a concept that was not pejorative. Granted, the people he refers to are generally not in any sort of cohesive organization, but I do think he believes them to be his opposition, and in general, when someone makes up a term for their opposition, there's usually a fair dose of pejorative thrown in. When you're using a hater's term for a another group, you're probably unconsciously picking up some of their bias. Do you think pro-life/pro-choice and anti-abortion/pro-abortion have equivalent connotations?

I'm sorry, I cannot have a meaningful discussion with you if you have no idea what I have said.
Or more likely, you are responding to what you wish I said, or at least cared about.



What do connotations and pejoratives have to do with anything?



Is there a reason you quoted my post? Were you trying to respond to me, but messed up somehow?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

MikeB1972's comment (rhetorically) asked if people who liked the Ancillary trilogy meant that they approved of the unjust society depicted in it. The people who like the story may just be in agreement with Breq's increasing disapproval of it. Should we like books portraying an unjust society? Maybe. Are the characters oblivious to the unjustness, are they in favor, are they railing against it, or just feel powerless to affect the unjustness? I'm assuming that matters to LL, to a certain extent, I think it matters to me. I don't know whether LL commented on 1984, but if she finds it shockingly offensive because of the unjust society, she's missing the point.

The general theme of this thread is that people disagree with her decision to attack books on more or less those grounds...
Although I don't think she attacked 1984 -- as far as I am aware, the unjust society inside the story of 1984 didn't target women...

Yes we agree she is missing the point.

[Freeshadow]

fjtprres your link hits it even better, because the point of both is that the general direction of behaviour seems even to have surpassed censorship. In perception of as well fiction as facts a right for self wrapping in PC-bubblewrap is demanded. Like making the three monkeys responsible for stocking the library. They want to NOT be made thinking.
NOT question the status quo or the past (as taught by textbooks) and NOT to be made asking themselves 'what if' as fiction usually does.

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

as far as I am aware, the unjust society inside the story of 1984 didn't target women...

Actually, it did.

It's just that it attacked everyone equally.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I maintain that assuming people are mindless haters merely because they use an acronym is blatant hypocrisy, with the standard level of irony that that entails.

I really didn't want to have a big discussion about it, and in no way I wanted to imply that people who used the term are mindless haters. I just think that it is maybe better to not use such a term in a constructive discussion trying to engage all sides

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I really didn't want to have a big discussion about it, and in no way I wanted to imply that people who used the term are mindless haters. I just think that it is maybe better to not use such a term in a constructive discussion trying to engage all sides

Indeed, using "SJW" probably says more about you than about the subject under discussion.

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

.......she's missing the point.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

......she is missing the point.

Of course she is missing the point (of the books she is citing). She had a very obvious agenda when she went to write her story/blog and it had nothing to do with the genre at hand. She cherry picked her supporting arguments and used them outside of all context. In addition, applying current social mores to works written 40, 50, 60 years ago is absurd in the extreme. To me, the only thought provoking aspect of her article is that it has somehow managed to illicit 11 pages of discussion. Slow news week? Though, to be fair, I have learned a bit more about some of the MR membership's social buttons...especially the ones not to push.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I really didn't want to have a big discussion about it, and in no way I wanted to imply that people who used the term are mindless haters. I just think that it is maybe better to not use such a term in a constructive discussion trying to engage all sides

Well there you go being all reasonable like, you'll take all the fun out of it.
Although shorthand like this is generally very useful so you don't have to explain what's going on every other paragraph, as long as it's not used in a err... Cross fanatical group discussion.

Of course, by the time these terms at normally employed, then there is generally no chance left for a reasonable discussion anyway. As soon as you attack the other side instead of the argument it's generally down to who can keep shouting longest

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I maintain that assuming people are mindless haters merely because they use an acronym is blatant hypocrisy, with the standard level of irony that that entails.

I see we've made the predictable journey from "lazy" to "haters." Oh, sorry, "mindless haters." Wouldn't want to misquote you. You might accuse me of cherry-picking or something.-)

[GERGE]

Pynchon is a writer whose books tends not to conclude with the neatly tied-up endings as is often found in the preceding novels that were driven by a conscious desire to overturn traditional modes of representation and express the new sensibilities of their times. His novels often parodies them. He tends to celebrate chance over craft, and further employs metafiction to undermine his authority as the writer. Another characteristic of his novels is the questioning of distinctions between high and low culture through the use of pastiche, the combination of subjects and genres not previously deemed fit for literature.

Or, you know, he is a post-modernist, as opposed to modernism.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by murg

Actually, it did.

It's just that it attacked everyone equally.

That is not called "targeting".

But then, you knew that already.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I really didn't want to have a big discussion about it, and in no way I wanted to imply that people who used the term are mindless haters. I just think that it is maybe better to not use such a term in a constructive discussion trying to engage all sides

Maybe, maybe not.

Let's compromise -- people who use that term without being mindless haters run the risk of being wrongly confused with the mindless haters.