Category Archives: Linkage

Marion Zimmer Bradley: Because This Sort of Thing Can’t Be Talked About Enough

Cancer-lapsed correspondence ALMOST caught up on.  Thank you so much for your continued patience, everyone.

Now, on to something I missed —

I’m linking well after everything broke, so a lot of you may have heard about all this already.  But just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t . . . I can’t not link.  Because heck, a portion of these atrocities was well-known decades ago, but they’ve been swept under the rug enough or just not talked about enough that I had no idea at all until it all came up again this month.

The short version: Marion Zimmer Bradley, very influential SFF writer, trailblazer for women, not only facilitated her husband’s sexual molestation of children but horrifically abused her own children herself.  And portions of the SFF community enabled and defended them.


The two things I’m personally determined to do in response to this: 1) stand with her/their victims by making an effort to continue awareness that these things happened (by linking, by informing, by helping make sure ugly truths aren’t buried because we want to put a shiny veneer on history), and 2) renew my commitment to speak up when I see something in the SFF community that I think is a problem.  I love fandom — I love our willingness, often, to accept and embrace people who have always been outsiders — but it is a real and dangerous problem when that push to accept without judgment snowballs into enforced blindness to abuse.

It is not counter to fandom’s acceptance of “quirkiness” to call out unacceptable behavior.  It is not a betrayal of our found SFF family to turn our backs on a member of that family who hurts others.  It is not making fandom a hostile place when we talk — or shout — loudly and freely and vigorously about the types of behaviors we think are not okay.

In fact, if there’s one thing I’m grateful for after learning all of this, it’s that there are so many people in SFF fandom right now who are unapologetically loud.  Who will speak up and won’t shut up.  Who will get angry.  Who will shout from the rooftops when things happen that they consider unacceptable in their community.

Keep it up, my friends.

In Which I Appear On Other People’s Blogs

I did a “Five Things I Learned” post over at Chuck Wendig’s blog today. Come by and give it a read!

And then this made me want to hide under the blankets . . . Thank you, kk.

Zero Sum Game has been uploaded to retailers and is just waiting for the gears to turn and for the carrier pigeons to lift the bits through the tubes. I’m only saved from refreshing repeatedly as I watch the sand trickle by the fact that I’m working tonight, thank goodness.

It comes!

Links to Analysis Regarding

Because I am, apparently, incapable of keeping my mouth shut when it comes to certain things.

Like math.

Like bad math.

Like people using bad math to support their pet Cause when the data do not support those conclusions.

If you don’t know what I’m talking about: self-publishing evangelist Hugh Howey and a silent partner went and scraped a bunch of Amazon data.  That’s fine.  That could be cool, even.  But then they made a bunch of pretty charts and used it to bang their pro-self-publishing / anti-trade publishing drum, and wrote a whole lot of paragraphs next to the pretty charts as if they were Conclusions, when, in fact, those paragraphs were not in any way implied by the data collected.

This pains me in my mathematician heart.  And it makes me angry when people misinform aspiring authors this way.  Mr. Howey touts himself as an author advocate, but that’s not what this is.  These data do not support his “conclusions.”  To be fair, they don’t disprove his ideas, either; they just don’t really say much of anything.  And when Howey pretends that they do support him, he’s giving authors bad information.

I’m not saying all this because I’m anti-self-publishing (I’m not!  I’m doing it myself, in fact!).  But science isn’t about “sides.”  When talking about science or math, there shouldn’t be sides; there’s no “teach the controversy” or “we’ll let the people who believe Earth is flat have equal air time.”  Or there shouldn’t be.  There’s just what the data imply, and what they don’t.  And there’s absolutely no shame in saying, “I firmly believe in XYZ.  And I just collected a lot of data in the field . . . but unfortunately those data don’t support XYZ.  They don’t contradict it, either, but there are just too many limitations here, and too much we don’t know.  That said, I still believe my ideas on XYZ are right and that the data will bear them out eventually!”

There’s no shame in that.

But that’s not what Howey did.  He used the numbers to pretty up a dog-and-pony show that pretends to support his preconceived notions with data, and he posted a piece that is actively detrimental to anyone trying to cut through the obfuscation and agendas and learn about publishing.

Now, who wants MATH?  Have some links![1]

How (Not) to Lie With Statistics.  “[The authors of the report] make claims that the data cannot possibly support […] they do a lot of inferring that is analytically indefensible.” (emphasis in the original)  I highly suggest reading the whole thing.  It’s a very detailed and well-written analysis by someone trained in research and sociological methods, and it concludes, as I did, that these data do not imply anything like what Howey claims.

Some Thoughts on Author Earnings. “The failure to compare the model’s results to actual measurements before making pronouncements is a huge problem.”  Courtney Milan is an extremely successful self-publisher, so obviously she’s pro-self-publishing.  She’s also clearly incredibly knowledgeable about data analysis, and she points out a myriad of problems with the way these findings are presented, as well as also some possible discrepancies in the raw data.

The Missionary Impulse. “Sorry, Hugh.  There is absolutely nothing in your blog post that justifies that conclusion.  This is not the same as saying that your conclusion is wrong.  Maybe it’s right.  But if it’s right, it’s not because of anything — anything! — in your blog post.”  This makes many excellent points and comes with a context of a lot of details of the publishing industry (the author is a literary agent).  Once again, the conclusion is that the data do not actually allow Howey to make any of the extreme claims he’s making.

Digital Book World: Analyzing the Author Earnings Data Using Basic Analytics.  “For myself and others, I wish I had more optimistic findings that showed we could all share in an incredible gold rush, but the data are the data.”  This article makes a case that the data are actually entirely consistent with the site’s own (far more pessimistic) prior survey, and can’t be used to prove anything more extreme.  (Obviously it’s possible there’s a bias there, and I can’t comment on the DBW survey as I haven’t seen the full thing, but I think what’s said here is valuable and knowledgeable regardless, and I note that the author is exceptionally qualified at data analysis.)

Some Quick Thoughts On That Report on Author Earnings. “[W]hile the report gives the illusion of providing hard data, it appears to be as built on guesswork as anything else we’ve had.”  Steve Mosby also makes excellent points about the unique path a published book takes, and that this can’t be repeated with hindsight.

Edited to add: Comparing self-publishing to being published is tricky and most of the data you need to do it right is not available “Unfortunately, Hugh’s latest business inspiration — a call to arms suggesting to independent authors that they should just eschew traditional publishing or demand it pay them like indie publishing — is potentially much more toxic to consume.” Mike Shatzkin weighs in with a long list of other variables Howey’s report does not take into account.


Look, you can’t list a lot of numbers and a lot of pretty charts and then list “conclusions” next to them and say one follows from the other because they happen to be next to each other on the page.  Science doesn’t work that way.

The poor way these data have been presented only serves to feed the adversarial “us vs. them” mentality that (some) self-publishers and (some) trade published writers are for some strange reason so invested in.  Personally, I want to see that attitude go away forever.  It’s not productive.  It’s not helpful.  I wish to all that is holy that Howey had come out with this spreadsheet in a more professional way, an invitation to other people in the writing/publishing world to analyze the data and see what we might be able to learn.  That might’ve been nifty, a positive addition to the knowledge base.  Instead, by presenting it as part of such a massive load of bad math and misinformation, he’s only clouded the discussion even more.

That’s not good for anyone.  And speaking as a self-publisher, it embarrasses me.  False conclusions that are unsupported by data, written up in something that pretends to be a study but is anything but—it just looks desperate.  Self-publishing is all grown up now, and the people most responsible for stigmatizing us in the eyes of other writers and publishers are the self-publishers themselves who pull stunts like this one.


Comments are closed, as I don’t have time to babysit the blog right now and from what I’m seeing elsewhere this subject can be rather contentious.  I may reopen them later.  If you have something you feel would be a valuable addition to this post, feel free to send me the comment through the Contact page and I will post it here.  Be warned that I am only going to be prone to posting contributions of the dry academic variety on this one.

  1. Note that this list is, in order, a researcher who doesn’t write fiction, a successful self-publisher, a literary agent, a data analytics professional whose research is in digitization, and a trade published writer.  And I’m a math nerd who is self-publishing my fiction books.  The biases we’d be expected to have are all over the map, but like I said, science doesn’t take sides.

Can We Please Not Rewrite History, Folks? (More on the SFWA Petition, and Links.)

Yesterday I ranted about how badly-written a certain petition is.  (It just offends me as a logician and a writer, yanno?)  I thought I would leave it at that, because books to write, and there are lots of other people saying very intelligent things so I don’t have to (see below).

But there’s one thing I see coming up over and over that nobody else seems to be addressing, and it’s driving me crazy.

I’m seeing continual efforts in some corners to frame the issues of the past year as people overreacting to the “lady writer”/”lady editor” columns in the Bulletin and to (poor! victimized!) Resnick and Malzberg daring to call women beautiful. Those columns were, in my humble opinion, inappropriate for the publication, but the people calling them out as such were respectful and relatively muted. (As were the criticisms of the (also inappropriate) Bulletin cover and the (also inappropriate) Barbie column that happened in parallel.)  There were eyerolls.  There were sighs.  The criticism I saw was polite and rather mild.

The thing that blew up the Internet was when Resnick and Malzberg decided to respond to those (respectful, muted) criticisms of their columns by scorching the fucking Earth. By calling their detractors “liberal fascists,” comparing their critics to Stalin and Mao, and making references to censorship and thought control. That was in the May 31 issue of the Bulletin, two issues and six months after the initial “lady writers” column.

That was not reasoned debate. That was a nuclear escalation of abusive, dehumanizing rhetoric against anyone who dared to disagree with them. And they did it in the publication of the professional organization that purported to represent a lot of those same people.

There’s a huge, huge difference between that and reasoned, relevant disagreement.  There’s a chasm the size of the Mariana Trench between that and the respectful airing of differing political views.

Personally, I’m sorry it took something so extreme to bring change to the publication—like this link points out, the Bulletin is a trade publication and thus should strive for professionality and relevance to the needs of the members (why is this even a question?). But I strongly object to the reframing of history some people are endeavoring to make here. It’s disingenuous and it’s minimizing. It’s casting the people who called for change as (shocking! unreasonable!) overreactors to a bunch of friendly old guys who (gasp!) dared to fondly use the word “lady,” and that is not at all what happened.

Look, I’ve even provided this handy timeline for you to reference.  Stop making shit up.  Stop rewriting events to cast the people who disagree with you as the bad guys and the people you support as picked-on innocents who were just writing some innocuous column about women writers, doncha know.  It’s not true.  And as a rhetorical tactic, it’s disgusting.

If your points are worth making, you should be able to make them without falsifying history.

(Speaking personally: the initial “lady writers” and “lady editors” columns made me roll my eyes, not think Resnick/Malzberg/the editorial direction of the Bulletin needed to be reamed in the public square. It was the later column that brought that reaction. And I think the same was true of many other critics.)

Now for Links

There are lots of people writing really insightful, intelligent things.  Have some links:

Silvia Moreno-Garcia compares the SFWA Bulletin to the trade publications of other professional organizations.  “I’m not worried about censorship. I’m worried we are a joke.” (This makes me want to join RWA, even though I’ve never successfully written romance in my life.)  Rachael Acks, whom I linked to yesterday, made a very similar point, and I continue to think it’s a good one.

A parody petition by Jim C. Hines, exhorting the president of RWA for more mantitty.  “If you continue this Politically Correct censorship of mantitties, aren’t you creating a slippery slope that leads to DEATH PANELS?” (This made me LAUGH OUT LOUD. Several times. Applause, Jim!)

SFWA released as statement regarding the petition. “While this petition has not been formally presented to SFWA, I have seen versions and they express concerns for something that does not and will not exist […]” (In other words, someone who is not a member of SFWA circulated an inflammatory petition spearheading a charge against something that . . . was never real. Yup, that sounds about right.)

Gary Farber’s Facebook page has some discussion I’ve found fascinating, including by a lot of pros.

I also recommend reading the comments at Natalie Luhrs’ post, which I also recommended yesterday, and which remains the most comprehensive rundown of the entire situation.

(Parts of this blog post were originally written for the discussion over at Absolute Write and posted there.)

The Mathematics of Walking and Running

So one of my betas gave me the feedback that she wants EVEN MORE MATH in my already-excessively-mathy book.

My reaction: “MORE math?  I CAN DO THAT!”

In particular, my beta (who is not a mathematician, by the way) wanted a few more technical specifics at some points.  I’d consciously tried to keep a balance between where I mentioned technical words and where I handwaved and basically said “because MATH,” and she thought some of the handwaving could stand a little more detail.  (Incidentally, I was quite chuffed the technical bits were interesting enough that she wanted more of them!)

Anyway, one of the bits my beta flagged was a spot where the MC is drawing conclusions about a person from the way he walks.  Here’s what’s in the book now by way of explanation:

It came to me in numbers, of course, the subtle angles and lines of stride and posture.

So, having been given the note of adding a touch of the specific to this part, I found myself researching the mathematics of walking.


This post is basically a ramp up to tell everyone to go to this website:

Modelling, Step by Step

which models walking and running mathematically, and can I say again, OMG SO COOL.  There’s mathematics behind the maximum speed we can walk (without breaking into a run), why running is more efficient, and why people who are trained to speed-walk can actually walk faster than people who aren’t.  HOLY CRAP THIS IS COOL.

On a side note, I’m constantly excited by how much I learn doing research for this book series.  I’m a theoretical mathematician, which basically means that the only mathy parts I’ve been able to write without research are the ones using high school-level math or physics (e.g. projectile motion) or when my MC was hallucinating.  I know very little applied math at all.  Writing this series has taught me all sorts of useful things, like whether a bullet can knock a grenade off course, and that blood spatter involves trigonometry, and now about the circular motion of walking!

New Blog Recommendation: Putputt Eats

So, one of my Internet Friends, she who is known as Putputt, has started a food blog.

Now, I can’t cook.  This is known.  However, I occasionally look at food blogs for the pretty pictures.  It’s like food porn.  (I rarely make anything, as I’m fond of my house not being burned down.  I just look at the pictures.)

Putputt is a brilliant photographer, so her blog has pretty food pictures in spades.  But her recipes are also hilarious.  They include steps like, “Sneak bites [and] mutter, ‘Holy crap, I’m a genius,'” and “Mix them in, then do 10 jumping jacks.”  And because Putputt encourages us (YES SHE DOES), the comment threads are pretty much all silly people who enjoy being silly, so y’all should stop by and hang out, and maybe make some of Putputt’s recipes so those of us who have managed to ruin Kraft macaroni and cheese[1] can live through you vicariously.

Finally, I apologize in advance to Putputt for signal-boosting this, as I know I have at least two vegans reading this blog, who will now probably come over and bug you about whether it’s okay to substitute in textured vegetable protein and ask you for tofu recipes.[2]  (Vegan friends: You should TOTALLY DO THAT.)

  1. Yes, really.
  2. Which you should do anyway because TOFU IS AWESOME. </Asian>

Links and Such Like

Freedom of Information, Intellectual Property, and Such Like

What It’s Like to Get a National Security Letter, from one of the only people in the country able to talk about it: “Again, they advised me to not even ask my board whether or not I can do this. So this is, in some sense, really putting myself at risk personally. Here I am, trying to make a decision as to whether or not we should sue the United States government over a secret demand for information, on my own.”

Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate: It’s fair use.  Everyone agrees it’s fair use.  Lionsgate even agreed it was fair use . . . initially.  But they’ve still managed to make this remix artist’s life an exhausting mash of court cases.  This is a very good example of how broken copyright law is in the United States.

Science, Math, and Such Like

Why the Internet should STOP saying dolphins rape each other.  It’s scientifically incorrect and trivializes rape.  Excellent read.

Crazy Living Rock.  Go home, Evolution, you’re drunk.

The caterpillar with a stack of heads.  Seriously, Evolution, go home.  And don’t drive.

A scientific paper published as a 38-stanza poem.

What happens when the media and blogosphere start picking up an academic article. Fascinating.

The math on whether Superman could punch someone into space.

And Superman’s ability to inflict people with prosopagnosia.  Since I’m faceblind myself, I got a kick out of this.

A Category 5 Kaiju would only need to eat 18 humans per day.  The math on Kaiju biology!

More math on Pacific Rim: How can they helicopter-lift the GIANT ROBOTS?  I love math on popular media!

A researcher tastes one-billion-year-old water.  For science.

The fallacious ways people weigh medical risk.

HPV rates have dropped by more than half thanks to the vaccine.  FUCK YEAH SCIENCE.

Writing, Blogging, and Such Like

The stats on how much of an article people are likely to read online.  I am totally guilty of most of this, except for the inverse relationship between reading and sharing—generally the articles I share are the ones I was interested enough in to read all the way through!

Why typing two spaces after a period is WRONG.  (Unfortunately, I cannot break myself of the habit, though Twitter is having a good go at it.)

Don’t tell the audience what you’re about to tell them.  Just tell them.

 Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, and Such Like

A tumblr of medieval European art showing that POC, y’know, existed there.  So quit it with the “historical accuracy!” argument.

Fat Nutritionist on beauty as a mask.  Fascinating, thought-provoking, wonderful read.

Real Women Have Carbon-Based Molecules.  Strikes back at the idea that “real women” need to look any particular way.

The Bad Touch.  About the Kickstarter thing.

A 17-year-old girl started a feminist society at school.  What happened next will make you sick.  These girls are high schoolers.

Twitter Trolls Turn Anime Convention Into “Paranoid Nightmare.”  My god . . . the hashtag “#gropecrew” . . . TRIGGER WARNINGS LOTS AND LOTS OF TRIGGER WARNINGS.

Just Because He Breathes: Learning to Truly Love Our Gay Son.

 I Have Met George Zimmerman.  One of the many, many moving responses to the Zimmerman verdict.

Game On Ladies: A man discovers what female gamers face when he plays as his wife’s character.

Final Thoughts on the SFWA Thing, and Additional Linkspam

Final Thoughts on the SFWA Thing, in the Form of Other People’s Thoughts

For those who are getting news through my blog, Scalzi apologized in his position as president and editor Jean Rabe resigned.  That’s the latest official news I know of.  While talking about official news, however, I would like to note that SFWA does have an official statement on sexual harassment that was in effect when this article was published.

Jim Hines has a great list of links for those interested, but I shall make particular note of:

Ann Aguirre’s for how much sexism and misogyny are not dead (horrifying);

Mary Robinette Kowal’s for a heartbreaking perspective from someone to whom SFWA means a great deal;

Foz Meadows’ for a breakdown of why the column is so problematic (warning for language);

Laura Resnick, Mike Resnick’s daughter, doesn’t respond to the issue in particular but talks about sexism in SFF;

and Radish Reviews, the wonderful purveyor of the original scans, has a great roundup / summation, including links to the sexist reaction of a former SFWA president and a critique of Scalzi’s apology in the first comment.

Personally, I’m still waiting and seeing.  I want to see what SFWA does to come back from this going forward.

Writing/Publishing/Intellectual Property

Mark Twain’s hilarious, devastating critique of castigation of James Fenimore Cooper’s “Deerslayer.”  Oh, how I hated “Deerslayer;” I love that Twain agrees! Quote: “Now I feel sure, deep down in my heart, that Cooper wrote about the poorest English that exists in our language, and that the English of ‘Deerslayer’ is the very worst that even Cooper ever wrote.”  And people say negative reviews shouldn’t be written with entertainment in mind!

Trademarks.  Fascinating article on what they’re meant to do and how they work, legally. on their experience going DRM-free.  “As it is, we’ve seen no discernible increase in piracy on any of our titles, despite them being DRM-free for nearly a year.”  What!  Shocking! </sarcasm>

Tobias Buckell on why 90 percent of the “knowledge” and advice about self-publishing is crap (with graphs!).


We Have Always Fought: Kameron Hurley brilliantly challenges the long-held ideas about women throughout history.  This is the post that has inspired women all over the net to pop up calling themselves “llamas.”  Highly, highly recommended.

Liz Bourke, one of my favorite people on the entire Internet, wrote a follow-up to an article I had previously linked to (Sophia McDougall’s The Rape of James Bond) that I somehow missed.  She goes into even more depth about the statistics regarding male rape and the strange double standard in fiction that the rape of women is “necessary because REALISM” and the rape of men is . . . nonexistent.  (She has numbers.  Lots and lots of numbers.)

The Hawkeye Initiative succeeds in real life!  A touching story of challenging sexism in the workplace through humor.

Television Writing Staffs Are Still Overwhelmingly White and Male, Surprise!

Hollywood is remaking The Crow, and they want to cast a white guy.  Fucking Hollywood.

What Kind of Asian Are You?  *snerk*  Hilarious video.

The iNotRacist App!  Best.  Satire.  Ever.  (video)

For more satire: Sexual Abuse in the White Community

It’s Time to Retire “Boob Plate” Armor.  Because It Would Kill You.  (

Strong is the New Skinny.  Great article about pushing for healthier aesthetic expectations for women.

Wikipedia’s sexist categorization.

People are racist about a Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial couple.  Every time I decide to have faith in humanity . . .

A former Navy Seal came out as transgender.

Kelly Sue DeConnick on the crap she goes through as a female comics writer.  More of the same, folks.  More of the same.  Still worth a read.


We don’t have a twin primes proof yet, but there’s a new proof that infinitely many pairs of primes come within 70,000,000 numbers of each other.  That’s AWESOME.  Seriously.  We’ve hit finiteness!  And apparently since the publication of the proof a couple months ago, the bound has been reduced to 5 million.  Closer and closer!

If you heard about the poachers who stole 10 percent of an entire tortoise species, here’s a sobering follow-up.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!  Scientifically Accurate Ninja Turtles (video) and Scientifically Accurate Spider-Man (video)NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!

Stunning graphical representation of why sharks should be more afraid of you than you are of them.

I feel like reading about obscure neurological conditions like this one should not be so fascinating.

Video of someone solving three Rubik’s cubes in six minutes . . . while juggling them.

And a few more links on Star Trek: Into Darkness, because I can:

Some hilarity from io9 that pretty much sums up how I feel about this movie.

All the plotholes and questions the movie failed to address.  Spoiler: There are a lot.

Could Benedict Cumberbatch really crush a skull with his bare hands?

The first Star Trek conventions were female-dominated.  I’m just going to leave this here.

Dear Mike Resnick, Barry Malzberg, and the SFWA for Giving You a Platform: Fuck You.

So, this thing happened.

Two issues ago, the SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America) had an article in their Bulletin that some people objected to because it showed a lack of respect for women writers and editors.  This was appropriately coupled with a chainmail-bikini-clad woman on the cover that even more people objected to. Because we’re not past that by now, yo.

Next issue, the Barbie thing happened.  You know, the article in the next SFWA Bulletin that said Barbie remains a role model and popular because “she maintained her quiet dignity the way a woman should.” . . . Right.

Next came this issue.  This issue . . .

This issue, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg decided that the appropriate response to people criticizing their previous remarks as sexist is to throw a fucking shitfit about it.  They call the complainers “liberal fascists.”  They accuse people who call out sexism of demanding “censorship” and “suppression.”  They label such criticism “thought control,” they dismiss their critics as stupid and cowardly, and they imply that people objecting to their statements is tantamount to pushing a freedom-silencing dystopia a la Stalin and Mao.

I am not making this up.  I am not exaggerating.

Of course, Resnick and Malzberg, in spewing vitriol at those who dare to criticize them and in proclaiming that they should not be “silenced” or “suppressed” or “censored,” seem to have forgotten something very important about freedom of speech: The right to free speech does not equal the right to a platform.  They can have all the freedom of speech they want, but that is in no way equivalent to having the professional publication of a professional organization as their playground for bullying the members of that organization who don’t agree with them.  Freedom of speech does not guarantee them this.

Unfortunately, in this case they got it anyway.

Which brings me to: What the hell, SFWA?  Do you not have editors?  Did no one read this screed before you splashed all six pages across the publication that is supposed to represent you to your members and to the world?  How did no one look at this and say, “Uh . . . I don’t think we want this representing the SFWA.  I don’t think we even want to be associated with the people who wrote it.  Because I don’t think we want to kick a good number of our members in the face and then laugh about it.”  How did nobody say that?  And if someone did say it, how did nobody listen?

This article doesn’t even walk the line.  It’s filth.  It’s abusive, it’s dismissive, and it reeks of logical fallacy from every corner.

Please, go read it for yourself.  My descriptions can’t capture it: page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4 page 5 page 6 (credit Radish Reviews)

And now for some other reactions:

Dear SFWA  In which E. Catherine Tobler resigns her membership from the SFWA.  (A poignant letter and a good summary of events.)

Dear SFWA Writers: Let’s Talk About Censorship and Bullying  In which the excellent Kameron Hurley points out how just because the world no longer agrees with all your bigotry, that’s NOT CENSORSHIP.

Radish Reviews is where I gakked the above screenshots from; scroll down to the bottom of the linkspam to see quotes and commentary and the links to the full article.

SFWA — Housebreaking a Puppy or Abusive Relationship? Ursula Vernon compares the SFWA’s continued, repeated offenses to an abusive relationship. Because you don’t just let people get away with that shit; you walk out.

The SFWA Bulletin, Censorship, Anonymity, and Representation An elegant logical takedown by Chris Gerwel.

SFWA Presdent John Scalzi takes responsibility and asks for people to contact him.  I think John Scalzi’s a good guy, so I’m going to refrain from sending him my thoughts for now, until the rage coheres into something more articulate.

Edited to add: Update about SFWA responses in my next post, here.