The Reclamation has already begun

Ur-Didact by StellarStateLogic
"Look into the eyes of my helmet and know despair!!!"
In case you missed it, an employee of Tor by the name of Irene Gallo published a comment on her Facebook page that essentially called supporters of Sad/Rabid Puppies "neo-nazis". She then doubled down on her remark by calling us "unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic".

So as to ensure that nothing is taken out of context, here is the full quote from Ms. Gallo:


Now, Ms. Gallo is not some peon working in the trenches at Tor. She is, in fact, the Creative Director at Tor Books. She later clarified her position, in the classic non-apology form that SJWs so love to use, stating that her comments were not made on behalf of Tor.com or Tor Books:


Tor Books Publisher Tom Doherty went much further and publicly distanced Tor Books from the comments made by Ms. Gallo:
Last month, Irene Gallo, a member of Tor’s staff, posted comments about two groups of science fiction writers, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, and about the quality of some of the 2015 Hugo Award nominees, on her personal Facebook page. Ms. Gallo is identified on her page as working for Tor. She did not make it clear that her comments were hers alone. They do not reflect Tor’s views or mine. She has since clarified that her personal views are just that and apologized to anyone her comments may have hurt or offended. 
The Puppies groups were organized to support a slate of authors for the Hugo Awards, given annually for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year. Media coverage of the two groups initially suggested that they were organized simply to promote white men, which was not correct.
Let me state for the record that I commend Mr. Doherty for graciously and clearly noting that neither Sad Puppies nor Rabid Puppies are about promoting racism, misogyny, or homophobia. The personal opinions of the creators and supporters of these slates on the subjects of race, feminism, and homogamy are NOT reflected in the nominees put forward in the two slates, as anyone with an even halfway-open mind would readily be able to see. Mr. Doherty is to be applauded for acknowledging what so many of his colleagues at Tor Books and Tor.com have so much difficulty in seeing: Sad/Rabid Puppies are about giving recognition to works of sci-fi and fantasy that actually deserve them. Period f***ing dot.

Now, let us come to the business of Ms. Gallo's rather intemperate comments and her non-apology.

 Ms. Gallo's words were published on her personal Facebook page. She has every right to say whatever she wants under the protections of a document that, as far as I can tell, she personally detests: the Constitution of the United States of America.

That does NOT mean that she may say whatever she wants without accepting the consequences.

In labeling the Puppies, Gamergate, and the supporters of both movements "neo-nazis", Ms. Gallo committed a grave mistake of judgement. Her words are not only false, they are libelous. And for that, Ms. Gallo absolutely should and must face censure.

Ms. Gallo appears now to be aware of this- I imagine she received a bit of a talking-to from her superiors at Tor, who for all of their personal faults are not stupid and recognise when loose lips (or, in this case, fingers) will cost them business. That is why she is attempting to clearly separate her personal commentary from her professional occupation in a frantic effort to save herself.

Unfortunately for Ms. Gallo, it doesn't work that way.

Ms. Gallo is a senior member of Tor Books and as such is a public, recognisable face of that business. She does not get a pass in her personal conduct when commenting upon matters related directly to her work and the industry. She should be held to the same standard that any other member of her industry would be when commenting upon matters relevant to the same.

To put things into perspective, let's say that I were caught making defamatory remarks on the record, in public fora, under my own name, about my employer's competitors, or- worse- about my company's clients. I would, rightly, be hauled in front of Human Resources, read the riot act, and sacked forthwith. And I am a pretty junior member of my organisation. My employer would be perfectly within its rights to treat me thus, because as an employee of that firm I am expected to uphold its code of conduct AT ALL TIMES, not just when and if I feel like it. That means that, as long as I am an employee of my firm, I am obliged to treat our customers courteously, and our competitors respectfully, both when I am at the office and when I am not.

Ms. Gallo appears to think that she can insult fans of sci-fi and fantasy at will- without stopping to remember that many of us who support the Puppies also happen to be Tor customers.

Or at least, we were.

The Supreme Dark Overlord of the Evil Legion of Evil, in his Unspeakable Evilness, has been all over this issue since it first broke a few days ago. And he has made it very clear that the battle lines will be drawn, and that Ms. Gallo will be held accountable for her inflammatory, factually absurd, and utterly unsupported claims:
If a CEO can lose his job for donating to a successful political campaign in the past, an Associate Publisher can, and should, lose her job for attacking her publishing house's own authors and customers. That is not only just, it is entirely fair play. It doesn't matter if Gallo apologizes or not. Eich apologized even though he did nothing wrong and he was still pressured into resigning. 
Gallo issued an unapology under pressure from her employer and she will probably end up issuing another one before she eventually resigns. Unless, of course. Mr. Doherty or someone higher up the chain finally does what should have been done yesterday and fires her. If someone at Castalia House were ever to attack our authors or customers in that way, they wouldn't even be given the chance to apologize. They would be fired on the spot. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly out the door. The fact that neither Mr. Doherty nor Mr. Patrick Nielsen Hayden saw fit to fire Ms Gallo for cause speaks volumes about where their priorities are.
Those priorities, of course, are their prerogative. Unlike Tor Books, everyone at Castalia House, from our volunteers to our Publisher, respects and values our authors. We value every single one of them, even those with whom we inevitably disagree on one issue or another. We value our customers as well, and as those who have had the occasional problem with getting their books delivered know, we go out of our way to take care of them even if the problem is on their end.
The idea of actually attacking them is the polar opposite of our attitude towards our customers. Without our customers, we not only don't exist, we have no reason to exist. Tor Books appears to have forgotten that.
His Evilness is of course referring to L'affair d'Eich, from a bit over a year ago. He is, indeed, entirely correct to argue that if Mr. Eich can be sacked for contributing to a political campaign, which is well within his First Amendment rights and is Constitutionally protected as such, then Ms. Gallo absolutely should be fired for going far beyond the pale of protected free speech and openly defaming us.

Ms. Gallo has refused (thus far) to retract her statement completely and acknowledge that she was wrong to defame us. If she persists with this course of action, then the only acceptable penalty is for her to be removed from Tor Books and Tor.com.

In fact, certain actions have already been set in motion to achieve precisely this end.

I will not state any more on that subject beyond this, as things are still developing with Tor Books and Tor.com's PR team, other than this: if you are one of the Evil Legion of Evil's Vile Faceless Minions, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

My friends, this will not stand. I, and others like me, have tolerated and will tolerate many things, right up to and including the initiation of physical violence, by those who oppose us- but now we have been pushed too far, and we are responding in no uncertain terms. Calling the Puppies "neo-nazis", given that several active-duty and retired US military personnel are on both slates, is the last straw. We will strike hard, strike home, and exact justice for this egregious insult.

Ms. Gallo was given her chance to recant. Had she taken it, nothing further would be necessary. Now it is time to face the consequences of her libel. Her removal from Tor Books and Tor.com is the only acceptable penalty now.

Let justice be done. And in the process, let us take one more step down the long road toward reclaiming our culture from those who seek to destroy it.

Comments

  1. "Let me state for the record that I commend Mr. Doherty for graciously and clearly noting that neither Sad Puppies nor Rabid Puppies are about promoting racism, misogyny, or homophobia."

    Actually, he noted that it was not for the purpose of promoting straight white men. That is a different thing.

    Given that Vox Mustela has argued, repeatedly, that RP is part of his culture war, combined with the fact that his culture war *is* "about promoting racism, misogyny, or homophobia.", then Rabid Puppies, at least, *is* about precisely what you falsely claim Tom Doherty said it wasn't about. :)

    "In labeling the Puppies, Gamergate, and the supporters of both movements "neo-nazis",

    Actually, if you look at words like "respectively", "some", etc., you get a much different picture. She compared the Sad Puppies to extreme right-wingers (which, for much of the First World, they are) -- and the Rabids to neo-nazis. One can argue that Vox Mustela is not precisely a neo-nazi; that he is instead a reactionary xenophobic misogynist homophobe of a different flavor than nazi -- but it is an argument, not a clear and simple libel. If that were a libel, then every single Republican commentator who's described Obama as a "Marxist" is far more guilty.

    "[Vox Mustela] has been all over this issue since it first broke a few days ago"

    Given that he broke it, at a time and place of his choosing, having sat on it for weeks, this is not surprising. I am shocked, shocked to find out that he's paying attention to something that he chose to bring up.

    "then Ms. Gallo absolutely should be fired for going far beyond the pale of protected free speech and openly defaming us."

    Well, let's see; the leaders of the Puppy movement are all published authors, hence public figures. This does set the bar rather higher -- and since, as established above, Mr. Beale and many of those complaining about her have been either deliberately or cluelessly misreading what she actually said, libel would be very difficult to prove.

    "My friends, this will not stand. I, and others like me, have tolerated and will tolerate many things, right up to and including the initiation of physical violence, by those who oppose us- but now we have been pushed too far, and we are responding in no uncertain terms. Calling the Puppies "neo-nazis", given that several active-duty and retired US military personnel are on both slates, is the last straw. We will strike hard, strike home, and exact justice for this egregious insult."

    And I presume you will call for the removal of the publisher of Castalia House, whose comments about con-going fandom were just as terrible and offensive, let alone his comments about other subsections of his potential audience?

    And given that at least one slated individual, an ex-military person, has publically stated the correctness and right of killing anyone of a particular political group he disagrees with before they could take office, and who feels the Fascists were very unjustly maligned, why do you think that being a member of the Armed Forces is a defense against an accurate accusation of neo-Naziism? Being a soldier does not guarantee in any way your purity.

    I will also point out that it was just last week that the very possibility of someone writing bad reviews on Amazon, thus damaging someone's potential earnings because of what they said (rather than what they did as an author/other professional) was being declared a terrible, terrible crime -- and now, because of what someone said, the calls are out to get them *fired*?

    Consistency, it is lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, he noted that it was not for the purpose of promoting straight white men.

    Read the rest of that paragraph of Mr. Doherty's statement:

    "Each Puppies’ slate of authors and editors included some women and writers of color, including Rajnar Vajra, Annie Bellet, Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Ann Sowards, Megan Gray, Sheila Gilbert, Jennifer Brozek, Cedar Sanderson and Amanda Green. Some of the authors on the Sad Puppy slate have been published by Tor and Tor.com, including Kevin J. Anderson, John C. Wright, Ed Lerner and Michael F. Flynn. Many, many Hugo Award nominees and winners are our authors too, including Kevin J. Anderson, John C. Wright and Katherine Addison this year[...]"

    Actually, if you look at words like "respectively", "some", etc., you get a much different picture. She compared the Sad Puppies to extreme right-wingers (which, for much of the First World, they are) -- and the Rabids to neo-nazis.

    This is hair-splitting given Ms. Gallo's very next sentence.

    One can argue that Vox Mustela is not precisely a neo-nazi; that he is instead a reactionary xenophobic misogynist homophobe of a different flavor than nazi -- but it is an argument, not a clear and simple libel.

    He is a reactionary. For that matter, so am I. Where is your evidence that he is xenophobic, a misogynist, or homophobic, given that he is a Zionist, happily married with children, and allows gay commenters on both of his blogs? Moreover, where is your evidence that he is a neo-nazi, if you are willing to make that argument?



    There is substantial anecdotal and empirical evidence that shows that Obama is not merely trained in economic Marxism, but cultural Marxism as well.

    And I presume you will call for the removal of the publisher of Castalia House

    Vox Day and Markku Koponen own Castalia House. They cannot be removed from what they already own. They can be penalised for treating their customers badly through the simple laws of the market- which, in my experience, they have never done.

    Based on what evidence do you accuse Vox or Markku of making terrible and offensive comments about convention-going fans?

    And given that at least one slated individual, an ex-military person, has publically stated the correctness and right of killing anyone of a particular political group he disagrees with before they could take office, and who feels the Fascists were very unjustly maligned, why do you think that being a member of the Armed Forces is a defense against an accurate accusation of neo-Naziism?

    I presume you are referring to Lt. Col. Tom Kratman. Where is your evidence?

    I will also point out that it was just last week that the very possibility of someone writing bad reviews on Amazon, thus damaging someone's potential earnings because of what they said (rather than what they did as an author/other professional) was being declared a terrible, terrible crime -- and now, because of what someone said, the calls are out to get them *fired*?

    Amazon reviewers posting fake reviews are acting in their own capacity as private individuals to abuse a publicly available system of information for their own purposes. They are able to do so under pseudonyms. That is their right, Constitutionally protected. That they seek to abuse that right is their problem and failing.

    When Ms. Gallo, as a public and recognisable face of her compnay, insults both customers and clients of the same under her own name, she should either apologise, or resign. It's Customer Service 101- don't piss off the people who buy your product. That is a firing offence in most companies, including mine- but apparently not at Tor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are now responsible for providing evidence for three claims that you have made. You are welcome to do so at any time.

      Delete
  3. This will come in several parts, as I hit character limits in my reply.

    "Actually, if you look at words like "respectively", "some", etc., you get a much different picture. She compared the Sad Puppies to extreme right-wingers (which, for much of the First World, they are) -- and the Rabids to neo-nazis.



    This is hair-splitting given Ms. Gallo's very next sentence."

    The next sentence: "They are unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic."

    Let's see -- if we apply that to people who are Puppy leaders -- the ELoE, as they describe themselves (facetiously, obviously) --

    Mr. Correia -- I lack enough evidence at the moment to say, but could go digging.
    Mr. Torgerson -- at least 1 out of three, and I would be utterly unsurprised by 2 or 3 out of three. Indeed, since he has argued that most of the recent winners of the Hugos were "affirmative action" votes, implying they couldn't have won on their own merits, this could easily bring us to 3 of 3.
    Mr. Beale -- 3 of 3.
    Mr. Wright -- 3 of 3.
    Mr. Kratman -- at least 2 of 3.

    By the standards of evidence established by Mr. "SJWs always lie" Beale, and Mr. "affirmative action Hugos" Torgerson, that statement certainly holds up.

    "One can argue that Vox Mustela is not precisely a neo-nazi; that he is instead a reactionary xenophobic misogynist homophobe of a different flavor than nazi -- but it is an argument, not a clear and simple libel.



    He is a reactionary. For that matter, so am I. Where is your evidence that he is xenophobic, a misogynist, or homophobic, given that he is a Zionist, happily married with children, and allows gay commenters on both of his blogs? Moreover, where is your evidence that he is a neo-nazi, if you are willing to make that argument?"

    I am going to start by making a more general statement: I don't know if you're willfully blind, or simply ignorant here.

    (and please note, I am not attributing any of the below quotes to individuals -- they are exemplars, not direct references.)

    Saying "I have a gay commenter" does not mean one is not homophobic. If someone says "Oh, blacks are on average inferior to whites, but I know this one really cool outlier! He's my friend!" they're still racist. "Oh, women are great around the house, but I mean, they couldn't handle doing real work?" is something many married men have said. It doesn't mean they're not sexist.

    Also: Being a "zionist" when your idea is "get them all in their own country so they're not in others" is not a sign of being pro-semitic. As for xenophobic: " the idea of the functional multi-ethnic society is not long for this world." -- that is about the definition of xenophobia.

    I can also link you here, for more evidence on Beale's commentary: http://file770.com/?p=23032&cpage=8#comment-278980

    "There is substantial anecdotal and empirical evidence that shows that Obama is not merely trained in economic Marxism, but cultural Marxism as well."


    Someone being trained in something, or having once been something, does not mean they are now. After all, if that were the case, I'd be a libertarian Republican. :)

    In all seriousness, you should try talking to even socialists -- not full-bore Marxists -- and see what they think of Obama. Hint -- he's a democratic centralist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Based on what evidence do you accuse Vox or Markku of making terrible and offensive comments about convention-going fans?"

    Vox, from a post May 19, 2015: "You have not seen true human wreckage until you've been to a science fiction convention. I've seen physically and psychologically healthier people on reservations and in refugee camps; one can hardly blame them for being drawn to escapism."

    And before you go rattling on about context, it is very clear from the rest of the post that he's not just talking about a few people.



    "And given that at least one slated individual, an ex-military person, has publically stated the correctness and right of killing anyone of a particular political group he disagrees with before they could take office, and who feels the Fascists were very unjustly maligned, why do you think that being a member of the Armed Forces is a defense against an accurate accusation of neo-Naziism?

    

I presume you are referring to Lt. Col. Tom Kratman. Where is your evidence?"

    Tom Kratman: "It is never wrong to kill a socialist when socialism gets close to the levers of power; it is always an act of legitimate self defense." -- comment in one of his EveryJoe posts. If you dig around further you will find him vigorously defending Italian Fascism.

    "Just to pick an example.

"I will also point out that it was just last week that the very possibility of someone writing bad reviews on Amazon, thus damaging someone's potential earnings because of what they said (rather than what they did as an author/other professional) was being declared a terrible, terrible crime -- and now, because of what someone said, the calls are out to get them *fired*?

    

Amazon reviewers posting fake reviews are acting in their own capacity as private individuals to abuse a publicly available system of information for their own purposes. They are able to do so under pseudonyms. That is their right, Constitutionally protected. That they seek to abuse that right is their problem and failing."

    The complaint has been levied not only at people posting so-called "fake" reviews (indeed, the person most often blamed for that specifically said "read the works, and then, if you feel like it, review them.) but people posting honest reviews that are simply bad.

    Indeed, it does not seem to have occurred to people that forcing them (by saying, in effect, to honorably vote for the Hugos, you have) to read works, they should expect that they won't get the same level of "Oooh, wow!" praise from people who picked up the work coming from other people who liked it.



    "When Ms. Gallo, as a public and recognisable face of her compnay, insults both customers and clients of the same under her own name, she should either apologise, or resign."

    She did apologize for painting with too broad a brush. Since her statement is true in reference to many of the leaders of the Puppy movement, there's no need to apologize beyond that.

    "It's Customer Service 101- don't piss off the people who buy your product. That is a firing offence in most companies, including mine- but apparently not at Tor."

    And here we're back. While I know that authors are not the same as employees, they are often the *more* public face of the company. So, for example, should Tor drop John C. Wright, as he has certainly managed to piss off many people who buy Tor's product?

    If not, can you explain why not for any reason other than "One is, under tax law, an employee, while the other is an independent contractor"?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts