Censorship warning: Lefties putting pressure on book stores to remove certain authors books

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sneaky Burrito

Crazy Cat Lady
Staff member
#2
Breitbart is not a reputable news source. Anyone who uses "SJWs" in a derogatory manner (or really, in any manner) in a headline has an agenda to push.

To provide context, some other Breitbart headlines:

"There's no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews"
'Science proves it: Fat-shaming works'
'Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet'
' "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" '
'Suck it up buttercups: Dangerous Faggot Tour returns to colleges in September'
'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy'

I will not hesitate to close the thread to further replies if the discussion becomes incindiary. Please note that quoting or referencing Breitbart may be considered incindiary to women, LGBT folks, people of color, and others. Please do remember that we (Ben and the moderators) have decided to avoid overtly political discussions on this website. Censorship *can* be discussed, if it is done so in a way that people with different opinions remain civil to one another, but the opening headline here starts from a particular position and automatically makes assumptions here that leave me doubtful that civility is possible in this thread.

That is all I'm going to say on this topic.
 

David Sims

Warded demons with Arlen
#3
Breitbart is not a reputable news source. Anyone who uses "SJWs" in a derogatory manner (or really, in any manner) in a headline has an agenda to push.

To provide context, some other Breitbart headlines:

"There's no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews"
'Science proves it: Fat-shaming works'
'Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet'
' "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" '
'Suck it up buttercups: Dangerous Faggot Tour returns to colleges in September'
'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy'

I will not hesitate to close the thread to further replies if the discussion becomes incindiary. Please note that quoting or referencing Breitbart may be considered incindiary to women, LGBT folks, people of color, and others. Please do remember that we (Ben and the moderators) have decided to avoid overtly political discussions on this website. Censorship *can* be discussed, if it is done so in a way that people with different opinions remain civil to one another, but the opening headline here starts from a particular position and automatically makes assumptions here that leave me doubtful that civility is possible in this thread.

That is all I'm going to say on this topic.
Breitbart is probably as good as any. Who would you put above them in reputability? CNN, the news organization who lied the United States into a war with Iraq with fake news about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (which turned out not to exist)? Or perhaps you mean NBC, the news organization that lied the black population of the United States into a murderous fury with fake news about George Zimmerman being a white racist and going so far as to deceptively edit Zimmerman's 911 audio with the police dispatcher so as to make him appear to have made racist comments that, in fact, he never made? Which mainstream media source is it that you would put above Breitbart in reputability? Deserved reputability, that is.

Breitbert wears its political animosities openly. The mainstream media have them too, they're just sneakier and more hypocritical than Breitbart usually is. If you think that you know of a mainstream media vendor that deserves to have a better reputation than Breitbart, please let me know which one it is. I'll check them out and tell you whether I agree or not, and why.

I've located what might have been the impetus for the Toronto leftist assault on the books of four science-fiction authors. Here it is:

On the Unwritten Code
by John C. Wright (posted May 13, 2015)
http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/05/on-the-unwritten-code/

Quoted in part:
John C. Wright said:
A meme currently circulating among the Social Justice Warriors in their relentless attempts to made poor, poor big-eyed puppies sad with their heaping awards upon talent-free uberleftist message fiction is that Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen and Vox Day, merely by asking fans to read and nominate worthy works, have violated the strict and scrupulously observed unwritten code of gentlemen forbidding the crassness of asking for votes in public.

Asking for votes in private, or if you are a Politically Correct leftist in good standing, of course, provokes no furor, as it is evidently not a violation.

I call it a meme because it is a thoughtless and absurd white noise of words, a self replicating sentence phrase that means nothing and says nothing. It is an accusation leveled because the accusers have run out of other, more credible, accusations, and they are not well behaved enough to shut their mouths with dignity after their case has been argued and lost.

Need I answer this hairball of absurdity they have coughed up?

No, but I shall:

I do not consider myself to be bound by an unwritten code that binds only me and leaves rivals and illwishers free to work their will as they see fit.
The unwritten code did not protect me when I and mine were grossly libeled in the Guardian, Slate, Salon, io9 and Entertainment Weekly with the most outrageous and perfidious defamation imaginable.

My crime is that I have a sufficient number of fans who admire my work to put me on the ballot. It was all aboveboard, scrupulously honest, legal, cricket, and according to Hoyle.

In return, I am accused of being a White Supremacist motivated by race-hatred, being a sexist motivated by misogyny, being a homophone (or whatever their make-believe word is) motivated by a psychopathological paranoia, and being a flying purple people eater motivated by aerial aubergine anthropophagy.
That seems to be relevant to the alleged reaction by the left, which Breitbart allegedly noticed and reported upon, on 21 January 2016. John C. Wright wrote a blog post that could be interpreted as disrespectful to leftists and even, perhaps, irreverent toward political correctness. (It's there; use the link to find and read it.) So in all likelihood, Breitbart reported on a real event, and probably without any significant amount of distortion.

It appears that Breitbart was echoed, in part, by Lela E. Buis on 4 February 2016.

Men being bullied
https://lelaebuis.wordpress.com/category/john-e-wright/

I wonder whether leftist groups are calling for the removing, censorship, and banning of books by Marion Zimmer Bradley, on account of acts of child molestation, carried on across nine years, upon her own daughter, as alleged by that self-same daughter and as confirmed by that daughter's brother. Although married to a man (who went to prison himself for pedophile sexual abuse), MZB was a lesbian, the L in LGBT+whatever.

I've heard certain fantasy/SF authors (e.g. Jim Hines, John Scalzi, and others) say that they believe the allegations of MZB's offspring and condemn MZB. Some of them say that her works should be shunned, therefore. Some of them say we should separate good art from the character of the artist. But none of the condemnation of MZB is coming, as far as I can tell, from the leftist groups who advocate LGBT+whatever causes.
 
Last edited:

Ryan W. Mueller

Journeyed there and back again
#5
If this is happening, they're perfectly within their rights to do it, as long as it is not the government telling bookstores not to stock these books. Any bookstores that agree not to stock these books are independent businesses, and they can make their own decisions.

People are also well within their rights to protest these decisions (both vocally and with their pocketbooks). Similarly, people on the Right can tell bookstores not to stock authors with far-Left views. There's no law against private citizens and private businesses advocating for or against authors based on their political views.

It's only censorship if the government steps in and forbids stores from stocking certain authors' books.
 

Alucard

In the name of the Pizza Lord. Charge!
Staff member
#6
What exactly are you complaining about David Sims? That the businesses have the right to choose what they will sell? Or who they will not sell?
Isn't that what every business in capitalism does?

We all discriminate and make choices every day. I discriminate again romance novels - you can even say I blacklisted them. I won't read any of that. Should some news outlet come after me? Should Breitbart come after McDonalds for not selling healthy food?

This whole thread is ridiculous.

People don't come to BFB to discuss politics. In fact political threads and comments are not allowed. Such content will be deleted and the user will be warned or banned. You can say we are purging the incorrect type of post i.e - political, religious, insulting.
 

Bierschneeman

Journeyed there and back again
#7
as already stated, this is private citizens and their rights. this is why I keep Facebook out of my life, and why I don't use news agencies for my news. if it's important enough I'll find out. if it's some new law or political jostling, I can read the law itself and form my own opinion. you said it yourself. you can't find a reputable enough news agency these days. so why are you using them at all.

It's like the Matrix. if you read their content, it only works for them.

I will point out (before someone e lse does) this is exactly similar and completely different to the cake incident. but now the gullble will be arguing different sides of it. it is different though, these bookstores not carrying these books aren't denying service to citizens of a group protected by Washington state constitution.

I should hope no one here knows my political stance, or leaning on anything (except censorship and copyrights, which aren't partisan issues. and my belief in republic) because political discussions are banned.

You can however take this over to the sister site. BSFB . it's not banned there, because you cannot have a serious conversation on sci-i without breaching politics. I would try to tie it into a book or tv show though.
 
Last edited:

Sparrow

Journeyed there and back again
#8
I found this on Breitbart.

SJWs Are Purging Politically Incorrect Sci-Fi Authors From Bookstores
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/21/sjws-politically-incorrect-purge-sci-fi/

Allegedly politically incorrect, that is. These loonies usually haven't read what they're trying to have banned.

The targeted authors, this time, are:

John C. Wright
Larry Correia
Brad Torgersen
Michael Z. Williamson
I'm totally okay with the aforementioned writers being banned from bookstores, except perhaps Torgersen as I've not read him. I did however google his name, and I don't like the look of the man. Seems kind of shifty to me.
 

David Sims

Warded demons with Arlen
#10
I'm gonna go with the "Breitbart is not a credible news sources folks."
Why not focus, instead, on whether the report is true? If you don't like Breitbart for reasons of political taste, then look around for a source of information that you like better. When I quoted from Breitbart, I didn't do so because I think that Breitbart is a right-leaning news organization, but because the story was relevant to the interests of fantasy/sci-fi writers and readers. If the story might not be true, then try to find evidence that weighs against the idea that a group of left-leaning ideologues were running around Toronto in 2015, "persuading" book store owners not to carry books by Torgersen, Wright, Corriea, and Williamson.

I'm not in Canada and cannot easily go there, but someone who is in Toronto, or could go there, might interview some of the book store owners and find out what did or didn't happen in 2015, and if there was pressure put on them to remove books by those four authors, what the nature of that pressure was. How far did it go? How far might it have gone? Did the book store owners comply with the leftist agitators' "requests"?

In fact, its entire objective is to topple our government and replace it with a fascist/racist model.
That sounds like a political statement to me. Since Allan led off with the subject, let me ask a political question.

Erm, no. I've removed the question because

Alucard said:
People don't come to BFB to discuss politics. In fact political threads and comments are not allowed. Such content will be deleted and the user will be warned or banned. You can say we are purging the incorrect type of post i.e - political, religious, insulting.
However, I will ask whether it is a fact that political threads and comments aren't allowed, or whether it is only politically incorrect political threads and comments that aren't allowed. Are alt-right political comments more likely to be censored than leftist political comments? Is the forum's rule against political threads/comments selectively enforced? Are categories of subject matter being used as a smoke-screen for a pro-left political bias, whereby a leftist violator will be winked at, while a rightist violator will be banned?
 
Last edited:

David Sims

Warded demons with Arlen
#11
I've found another blog post that sheds some light on the subject of my original post. It's written from a pro-left perspective, and I don't agree with its author about whom are the "villains," but he reveals that the animus toward the four authors that I named in my OP, as well as someone named Vox Day, resulted from their getting enough votes to dominate an award nomination event somewhere. And the leftists who had been dominating previously did not like it.
This controversy has the same smell as that emitted by the "Not-My-President-F-Donald-Trump" snowflake riots of December 2016.
Anyway, here's the link:

https://electricliterature.com/how-bigots-invaded-the-hugo-awards-52f30f7f53a

So, is the alleged disrepute of Breitbart still an issue?

Also, I hope that putting the tangential political remark in spoiler tags helps mitigate the potential spinoff US electoral-political debate.

Postscript: here's another blog post, from a centrist perspective (which the leftists will probably misdescribe as a rightist perspective) on the same topic.

http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/04/02/hugogate-2015-edition-third-times-the-charm/
 
Last edited:

Bierschneeman

Journeyed there and back again
#12
Are categories of subject matter being used as a smoke-screen for a pro-left political bias, whereby a leftist violator will be winked at, while a rightist violator will be banned?
no


This is not true, if it was your thread would be censored instead of warned. your thread is about as borderline as the Public apology to Europeans last year which also wasn't censored. to my knowledge those are the only two threads with overtly political opinions not censored here. that's one from each side.

However I would say that your last post is (and allans) are closer to crossing the line IMHO to very political tangents that have less to do with the thread subject and more to do with starting a political argument the likes of which are why the bouncers here do not allow political posts.
 

Derk of Derkholm

Journeyed there and back again
#14
I can only speak for Larry Correia .... even if I knew nothing about his despicable political views, his abysmal writing, which would put every average 12-year-old to shame (as in: he would be ashamed for writing like L.C.) should be sufficient any day to boycott his oeuvre... give me Robert Stanek over that particularly sad puppy every day ...
 
Last edited:

Maark Abbott

Journeyed there and back again
#15
Breitbart is not a reputable news source. Anyone who uses "SJWs" in a derogatory manner (or really, in any manner) in a headline has an agenda to push.
Categorically disagree. You have to separate the unreasonable, far-far-left crazies from those with a reasonable point to make. SJW is as good a term as any. Use it to tar those who push rhetoric falling on the left (on which I sit) in a manner that is excessively aggressive and questionable at best, mirroring the hard to extreme right as per horseshoe theory.

But on the other hand, Breitbart can eat so many dicks.
 

Amaryllis

Journeyed there and back again
#17
This got my attention mostly because this appears to be a story from 2016, being treated like it's current. I recall the story from back then, but don't know that it ever had any effect. I could still -- and CAN still -- find Larry Correia, John C. Wright and Michael Williamson books at practically any bookstore except for the really hipster ones (I have never seen Torgersen at ANY bookstore, but am not sure if that's just because he's too independent).

People can organize lame letter writing campaigns to get stores to stop stocking authors if they want. It's kind of a shitty thing to do, but there's nothing unlawful about it. If you don't like it, try putting together one of your own to support authors/get at authors you don't like. In both cases, the vast majority of stores are likely to tell you to go jump off a cliff if that author makes them money. If a private business decides to stop stocking an author for ideological reasons, and you don't like it, then don't give them any more of your money. The Right really needs to learn to network and organize these things better (about something besides the Second Amendment).

However, I will ask whether it is a fact that political threads and comments aren't allowed, or whether it is only politically incorrect political threads and comments that aren't allowed. Are alt-right political comments more likely to be censored than leftist political comments? Is the forum's rule against political threads/comments selectively enforced? Are categories of subject matter being used as a smoke-screen for a pro-left political bias, whereby a leftist violator will be winked at, while a rightist violator will be banned?
A thread whining about the election of Donald Trump a day after the election in 2016 was also closed for being political. So, while people here have obvious biases, the rules are not biased, and I have never seen them being selectively applied (for which I am profoundly grateful). So while I can sympathize with feeling censored, and it's hard to find non-echo chambers to post about stuff like this in, let's not DIG to find victimhood.

Breitbart is not a reputable news source. Anyone who uses "SJWs" in a derogatory manner (or really, in any manner) in a headline has an agenda to push.
Disagree, unless you see no difference between someone with moderate left-leaning views vs. the people who subscribe to hardcore intersectionality dogmas, deeply idolize communism, think that people should be blackballed for life from every industry because they made a racist joke among friends in a IRC chat back in 2002, and think that anybody who fundamentally disagrees with them about anything -- or even agrees with them, but insufficiently -- is pure evil. Using it in a headline is fine, because everybody knows exactly who you're talking about, which is the whole point.

Vox Day's great epic fantasy series, Arts of Dark and Light, starting with The Throne of Bones, is absolutely great.
It's a lot better than I expected it would be, although the opening battle didn't give me much hope (it seemed like a tabletop wargame sim being transcribed onto the page...which it probably was). I read it expecting it to be hilariously terrible, because that's what everyone said it was, but he writes a lot better than the wider SF/F world gives him credit for.

Not much else to respond to, as outside of a few thoughtful posts, most of the rest of the thread appears to be people rushing to demonstrate their wokeness.
 

Darwin

Journeyed there and back again
#18
The whole business model of Breitbart (and Fox, for that matter) is to find inconsequential, non-representative anecdotes to trigger members of the party of racial resentment into a rage against the left. Not necessarily fake news, but non-news made to look like urgent news. Some Toronto bookstores were asked by a patron not to carry the books of some mediocre authors? This could potentially have cost those authors dozens of dollars! I mean gosh darn, peoples feelings could have been hurt!

I saw a recent story about SJWs threatening to burn down a bookstore over the owners' political views. Local news; mainstream national news didn't touch it. I'm surprised Breitbart didn't cover it. http://abc7news.com/politics/revolu...becomes-target-for-right-wing-groups/3191606/

smdh
 
Last edited:

Derk of Derkholm

Journeyed there and back again
#19
Vox Day's great epic fantasy series, Arts of Dark and Light, starting with The Throne of Bones, is absolutely great.
Even if it was, he's on the same pile as Marion Zimmer Bradley (the not-to-be-read) for me...

But then, Amaryllis succinctly described me in that earlier post :p
... vs. the people who subscribe to hardcore intersectionality dogmas, deeply idolize communism, think that people should be blackballed for life from every industry because they made a racist joke among friends in a IRC chat back in 2002, and think that anybody who fundamentally disagrees with them about anything -- or even agrees with them, but insufficiently -- is pure evil.
 
Last edited:

ExTended

Journeyed there and back again
#20
I make it a point not to discriminate between people who hate gays and gays who push their gayness in your face. Racists and SJW... it's always people who prefer to find someone else to blame for the hardships in their lives than the person who is actually responsible, which is them themselves.

Sure, world isn't fair and doesn't deal the same exact hand to anyone, but democracy and commercialism make it as fair as it would ever get. I hate people who'd try to push their own agendas in front of someone else's, jut because they are the minority, or the "most screwed up few".

Books are expressions of writers' inner worlds and as such they are precious, even if the writer is a sumbag or has a view of the world you completely disagree with.

No one has the right to punish people for their beliefs, not lawfully at least, and certainly not before the people with whom beliefs you disagree with happen to break the law.

A world where a group of lazy, hateful or bu**hurt bastards gets to call the shots on everybody else is a scary world indeed, and I for once would prefer not encouraging its spawning. Tolerance like everything else is either a healthy thing or a poison, depending on how generous you apply it to a problem. Right now we are on the verge of going a few shades too tolerant - personal opinion. But the fact that a group of people would presume to silence another group of people, despite the quite clear laws of free speech is not cool, and never should be.

I haven't even heard of those authors before, so I don't have a personal stake upon the matter. But they are human beings too, even if they happen to be hateful/misguided ones, they have the right to provide for their families just the same as everyone else, they have the right to have opinions and to stand for something, and they would ultimately bear the consequences of democracy and free market, not the consequences of misguided tolerance.

But I am just a privileged white male, so what do I even know... we privileged white people, especially males, don't have to work to have good things, they just magically appear out of thin air. Ridiculous!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.