9 comments on Livejournal; 5 comments on Dreamwidth; 5 reblogs with commentary on Tumblr; 7 comments on Google+, 15 comments on the personal repost at Facebook.

Oooh, over on Radish Reviews, Robert Silverberg says he signed the original version, and goes on:

“Nancy Kress and I and several others spent four or five days revising the draft to eliminate material in it that we regarded as counterproductive or downright inflammatory.”

So far, he’s replied to everyone addressing him directly except me.

1. politics (n.) Look up politics at Dictionary.com
1520s, “science of government,” from politic (adj.), modeled on Aristotle’s ta politika “affairs of state,” the name of his book on governing and governments, which was in English mid-15c. as “Polettiques.” Also see -ics.

Politicks is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs, and, as those are forever changing, what is wisdom to-day would be folly and perhaps, ruin to-morrow. Politicks is not a science so properly as a business. It cannot have fixed principles, from which a wise man would never swerve, unless the inconstancy of men’s view of interest and the capriciousness of the tempers could be fixed. [Fisher Ames (1758-1808)]

Meaning “a person’s political allegiances or opinions” is from 1769. [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php]

2. political (adj.) Look up political at Dictionary.com
1550s, “pertaining to a polity, civil affairs, or government;” from Latin politicus “of citizens or the state” (see politic (adj.)) + -al (1). Meaning “taking sides in party politics” (usually pejorative) is from 1749. Political prisoner first recorded 1860; political science is from 1779 (first attested in Hume). Political animal translates Greek politikon zoon (Aristotle, “Politics,” I.ii.9) “an animal intended to live in a city; a social animal.” [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php]

3. correct (v.) Look up correct at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., “to set right, rectify” (a fault or error), from Latin correctus, past participle of corrigere “to put straight, reduce to order, set right;” in transferred use, “to reform, amend,” especially of speech or writing, from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + regere “to lead straight, rule” (see regal). Originally of persons; with reference to writing, etc., attested from late 14c. Related: Corrected; correcting. [http://www.etymonline.com/index.php]

4. “Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or actual discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. The term usually implies that these social considerations are excessive or of a purely “political” nature. These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.

Historically, the term was a colloquialism used in the early-to-mid 20th century by Communists and Socialists in political debates, referring pejoratively to the Communist “party line”, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. The term was adopted in the later 20th century by the New Left, applied with a certain humour to condemn sexist or racist conduct as “not politically correct”. By the early 1990s, the term was adopted by US conservatives as a pejorative term for all manner of attempts to promote multiculturalism and identity politics, particularly, attempts to introduce new terms that sought to leave behind discriminatory baggage attached to older ones, and conversely, to try to make older ones taboo. This phenomenon was driven by a combination of the linguistic turn in academia and the rise of identity politics both inside and outside it. These led to attempts to change social reality by changing language, with attempts at making language more culturally inclusive and gender-neutral. These attempts (associated with the political left) led to a backlash from the right, partly against the attempts to change language, and partly against the underlying identity politics itself.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness]

….yeah, I pretty much ignore ANYONE who tries to use “politically correct” the way the SFWA dinosaur is trying to use it.

AND THERE’S MORE! Bob showed up on James Nicoll’s Livejournal. And wow, does he need to stop digging. And the cover letter that was sent around with the petition is also pretty special.

On the plus side, The Ferrett on Livejournal put up a worthwhile post on what, again, should be basic writing 101: if you need your audience to know you personally to get it, and get your meaning, and your intent, stop blaming your reader: that’s bad writing.

Oh, and Scalzi kind of nails it in a Twitter comment.

11 February links:

Theodore Beale, the white supremacist who contributed to last year’s SFWA disasters, has signed, but strangely, he doesn’t seem to be on the official list.

The petition’s author, Dave Truesdale, described the 2007 mostly-women PK Dick Award shortlist as, and I quote, “vagina-heavy” and the authors as “five furry pussies on the ballot.” On a personal note, anybody who would sign a petition by this asshole is on my die in a fire list.

SFWA president to petitioners: this isn’t even happening, what are you on about?

As implied above, I’ve moved from embarrassed to angry, after finding out more about Mr. Truesdale and his past writings.

Jim Hines has posted a parody of the horrible petition.

S.L. Haung recounts some of last year’s issues, and tells the petitioners to stop rewriting history.

The petition’s author, Dave Truesdale, described the 2007 mostly-women PK Dick Award shortlist as, and I quote, “vagina-heavy” and the authors as “five furry pussies on the ballot.” On a personal note, anybody who would sign a petition by this asshole is on my die in a fire list.

Just in the interest of accuracy, and NOT (as you shall see) to defend Truesdale or his signatories, it needs to be mentioned that Truesdale’s offensive 2007 screed was actually a satire/fisking of Bookslut’s post bemoaning, in strongly worded terms, the in fact hugely penis-heavy ballot that year. (He links to it shortly after his so-called punchline.) Truesdale apparently took offense to her tone, misread some of her analogies, and also misinterpreted a bunch of other things, and then constructed the hateful Off On A Tangent column as a way of saying, “See how it feels, ladies? Next time, don’t say such sexist things about men!”

Which doesn’t actually make things any better. It makes him appallingly inobservant about context, history, and the tilt of the decidedly non-level playing field.

And also an enormous sexist jerk for apparently enjoying (“Now that I’ve had my fun,” he says) such a golden opportunity to rock out with his misogyny out under the blanket excuse of “but she started it!”

Nicole: Quite so, as I pointed out in my follow-up post on Tuesday. However, as has been noted many times, repeating racism and/or misogyny and then going “hurr hurr parody and if you didn’t get it you’re an idiot” – as he does – is not actually parody, or satire, it’s just being misogynist or racist, and pretending you have an excuse that makes it okay.

(Not to mention the MRA-esque What About The Menz? of it all.)

It simply reeks of the standard “if a shortlist is entirely men, it’s obviously objectively made of the best people; if it’s mostly or entirely women, they obviously cheated and don’t deserve it” bias for which I have no patience whatsoever.

See also an earlier – quite longer – commentary I made on why 17% women is seen as “fair representation,” 33% women is “mostly women,” and more than that creates cries of misandry. This is all at play here.

Readers interested in this topic may also find these other posts other posts interesting: Power and Supervillainy, about harassment at conventions, Pushback and Misandry, about how resistance to sexist abuse is consistently misrepresented, and finally, Gatekeeping and Recourse, which contains something only men can do about exclusionary harassment by men against women.

Aha. I had not yet seen your follow-up — my apologies!

Other than that, I have nothing to add but a “hear here” to everything you have said. I have very little benefit of the doubt to offer the author of the petition nor to its signatories.

I’m sort of reeling in helpless frustration that someone can come up with this hateful screed full of bad logic, contradictory demands, misogyny, racism, entitlement, and on top of it all a complaint about something that SFWA wasn’t even contemplating doing… and this causes a large piece of the internet to go “Oh, God, SFWA’s starting more drama.” In this case, the only way SFWA can be said to have started the drama is by taking steps, which I applaud, to fix their racist/misogynist/homophobe problem… which inevitably leads to push-back of this nature from the entitlement sector. Argh. But to be blamed for their hissy-fit is… Argh.

Sorry. You are not doing the blaming as far as I can see. But I’ve seen more than enough blog titles across the internet that seem to do that blaming, and I seem to have a keyboard under my fingers and a bunch of frustration to give vent to.

Keep fighting the good fight.

I’m making a point of not blaming SFWA; I’ve actually corrected people a couple of places. But you’re right, most people are not going to be so discriminating, and in fact have not been.

I really wish I could get more traction on this post (Gatekeeping and Recourse), about something men can do (and only men can do) about this kind of thing. It’s a fairly popular post – top ten last year – but it hasn’t had the kind of spread I’d hoped.