UPDATE:
David A. Riley has stepped down from the HWA jury.
You may remember last year, when everyone found out that David A. Riley, a British writer and editor, was a long-time member of the fascist National Front in the United Kingdom, and that he continued to be a participant in fascist politics well into the 2000s. Now he has been appointed to the anthology jury for the Bram Stoker Awards. I wrote the below on my Facebook yesterday:
Some notes on the recent drama in the Horror Writers Association (of which I am no longer a member) and their appointment of fascist David A Riley to the award jury. This is a public post. My FB is not normally public.
1. No-platforming. This has become widely misunderstood as militant liberals have generalized a particular radical practice—the demand to keep fascists from having a public platform at events and within organizations. One can and should no-platform fascists for the simple reason that fascism is a totalizing and universally negating political philosophy—it cannot prosper without the destruction of all points of view via political violence. Even Stalinist and Maoist Communism, say all the horrifying and accurate things about it you can, is self-protective—that is, it can adapt to diplomatic needs, introduce or quash markets internally etc. There is still a core of "dialectic"—a philosophy based on change. (Thus China going from economic backwater to central driver of the world economic system in a generation while still putatively remaining "communist".) Fascism is based on achieving a certain transhistorical perfection, which is impossible and inherently anti-rational, and thus it not only can broke no diplomacy/debate, it cannot even keep itself stable. It destroys everything, including ultimately itself (and takes plenty of people with it when it collapses). THAT is why it must be kept from growing.
1a. Liberals confuse this idea with a broader idea that unpleasant people are unpleasant and thus should be excluded from pleasant activities. This is the core of the slippery slope arguments around no-platforming. If the answer to "Where does it end?" isn't "Where it begins; with fascism", the argument to no-platform will never be consistently won, especially in groups like HWA, which have intrinsic and correct allegiances to freedom of expression and diversity of thought. The sad fact of this political juncture is that neither the mainstream liberal or conservative factions are interested in free expression—only the smarter elements of the far left and the less stupid bits of the libertarian right are. Fascism is a particular and singular exception, and even then, the state should not be involved in limiting speech—it's up to activists to militantly defend creative milieux against fascism.
2. Specific HWA claim: "discrimination based on political views" is "specifically illegal in a number of U.S. states."
a. doubtful this applies to groups like HWA, and volunteer positions like award jury member. Some states don't allow *workplaces* to discriminate based on political affiliation. HWA members should ask for exact statute or case law; I suspect none will be forthcoming. Non-profits of HWA's sort are barred from some forms political activity, not from internal decisions.
b. HWA's ability to appoint jury members is necessarily accompanied by its ability to remove jury members *without* giving a reason. If one cannot remove David A. Riley because he is a fascist, one can remove him because it is Wednesday.
c. What's Riley going to do? Sue? From England? For no damages? (What damage is suffered by not being allowed to volunteer without compensation?) To get his volunteer not-a-job back before the end of the year when it is already April?
3. What's the harm? Editors and publishers submit work to the jury. One need not be HWA members to submit work. I've submitted stories by Japanese authors, and my Japanese anthologies as a whole, in past years. Why would I do that if I know that one of the members considers Asians to be necessarily inferior? I was also published in an anthology called CALEDONIA DREAMIN' with a theme of celebrating the Scots language, a few years ago—why submit work from that book to a juror who belongs to a group that believes that Scottish independence is a trick by EU "string-pullers" and "traitors" in Westminster, and that the Scots language is illegitimate? Fascists make bad jury members for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who ever noticed names like, oh, "Klein" on their bookshelves.
Just a few other notes:
Last year, Riley claimed initially that it was all an error, and that another HWA member, an American also named David Riley, was the baddie-fascist type. For this alone Riley could have been removed from HWA. Member directory abuse and bad-jacketing someone else as a fascist is clearly an expulsion-level offense. (A notorious fellow with schizophrenia was removed from membership after abusing the directory to find harassment targets some years ago, so there is precedent.)
I was asked if my framework would also suit Lambdaconf and the software person/fascist blogger Moldbug, over which there is some controversy. I had this to say:
The slight difference here is that Moldbug was going, supposedly, to talk only about programming. In this situation, Riley is tasked with expressing aesthetic judgment, and fascism is an aesthetic. I could conceivably see a way for Moldbug to not be no-platformed—perhaps allow him only to send a paper or presentation for a person not of his choosing to present—but with Riley, the job is basically "Bring all your varied thoughts to this task" and his varied thoughts are "Smash Asian immigrants for a White United Kingdom!"
But I should also say that I know nothing of software conferences. However, no-platforming is something that should only be done super-rarely, thus my formulating a way not to no-platform Moldbug's purely technical ideas.
Finally, I don't see a reason to go full all-member boycott as Brian Keene is. Boycotting HWA events/books/awards is fine, but I don't think it is worthwhile to treat every individual member as a locus for boycotting is appropriate in this case. It's easy enough to be a member of some group and have no idea what the heck is going on anyway.
ETA: Brian, in the comments, clarifies his position: he's only boycotting HWA-branded/themed events/books etc. not individual HWA members.
David A. Riley has stepped down from the HWA jury.
You may remember last year, when everyone found out that David A. Riley, a British writer and editor, was a long-time member of the fascist National Front in the United Kingdom, and that he continued to be a participant in fascist politics well into the 2000s. Now he has been appointed to the anthology jury for the Bram Stoker Awards. I wrote the below on my Facebook yesterday:
Some notes on the recent drama in the Horror Writers Association (of which I am no longer a member) and their appointment of fascist David A Riley to the award jury. This is a public post. My FB is not normally public.
1. No-platforming. This has become widely misunderstood as militant liberals have generalized a particular radical practice—the demand to keep fascists from having a public platform at events and within organizations. One can and should no-platform fascists for the simple reason that fascism is a totalizing and universally negating political philosophy—it cannot prosper without the destruction of all points of view via political violence. Even Stalinist and Maoist Communism, say all the horrifying and accurate things about it you can, is self-protective—that is, it can adapt to diplomatic needs, introduce or quash markets internally etc. There is still a core of "dialectic"—a philosophy based on change. (Thus China going from economic backwater to central driver of the world economic system in a generation while still putatively remaining "communist".) Fascism is based on achieving a certain transhistorical perfection, which is impossible and inherently anti-rational, and thus it not only can broke no diplomacy/debate, it cannot even keep itself stable. It destroys everything, including ultimately itself (and takes plenty of people with it when it collapses). THAT is why it must be kept from growing.
1a. Liberals confuse this idea with a broader idea that unpleasant people are unpleasant and thus should be excluded from pleasant activities. This is the core of the slippery slope arguments around no-platforming. If the answer to "Where does it end?" isn't "Where it begins; with fascism", the argument to no-platform will never be consistently won, especially in groups like HWA, which have intrinsic and correct allegiances to freedom of expression and diversity of thought. The sad fact of this political juncture is that neither the mainstream liberal or conservative factions are interested in free expression—only the smarter elements of the far left and the less stupid bits of the libertarian right are. Fascism is a particular and singular exception, and even then, the state should not be involved in limiting speech—it's up to activists to militantly defend creative milieux against fascism.
2. Specific HWA claim: "discrimination based on political views" is "specifically illegal in a number of U.S. states."
a. doubtful this applies to groups like HWA, and volunteer positions like award jury member. Some states don't allow *workplaces* to discriminate based on political affiliation. HWA members should ask for exact statute or case law; I suspect none will be forthcoming. Non-profits of HWA's sort are barred from some forms political activity, not from internal decisions.
b. HWA's ability to appoint jury members is necessarily accompanied by its ability to remove jury members *without* giving a reason. If one cannot remove David A. Riley because he is a fascist, one can remove him because it is Wednesday.
c. What's Riley going to do? Sue? From England? For no damages? (What damage is suffered by not being allowed to volunteer without compensation?) To get his volunteer not-a-job back before the end of the year when it is already April?
3. What's the harm? Editors and publishers submit work to the jury. One need not be HWA members to submit work. I've submitted stories by Japanese authors, and my Japanese anthologies as a whole, in past years. Why would I do that if I know that one of the members considers Asians to be necessarily inferior? I was also published in an anthology called CALEDONIA DREAMIN' with a theme of celebrating the Scots language, a few years ago—why submit work from that book to a juror who belongs to a group that believes that Scottish independence is a trick by EU "string-pullers" and "traitors" in Westminster, and that the Scots language is illegitimate? Fascists make bad jury members for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who ever noticed names like, oh, "Klein" on their bookshelves.
Just a few other notes:
Last year, Riley claimed initially that it was all an error, and that another HWA member, an American also named David Riley, was the baddie-fascist type. For this alone Riley could have been removed from HWA. Member directory abuse and bad-jacketing someone else as a fascist is clearly an expulsion-level offense. (A notorious fellow with schizophrenia was removed from membership after abusing the directory to find harassment targets some years ago, so there is precedent.)
I was asked if my framework would also suit Lambdaconf and the software person/fascist blogger Moldbug, over which there is some controversy. I had this to say:
The slight difference here is that Moldbug was going, supposedly, to talk only about programming. In this situation, Riley is tasked with expressing aesthetic judgment, and fascism is an aesthetic. I could conceivably see a way for Moldbug to not be no-platformed—perhaps allow him only to send a paper or presentation for a person not of his choosing to present—but with Riley, the job is basically "Bring all your varied thoughts to this task" and his varied thoughts are "Smash Asian immigrants for a White United Kingdom!"
But I should also say that I know nothing of software conferences. However, no-platforming is something that should only be done super-rarely, thus my formulating a way not to no-platform Moldbug's purely technical ideas.
Finally, I don't see a reason to go full all-member boycott as Brian Keene is. Boycotting HWA events/books/awards is fine, but I don't think it is worthwhile to treat every individual member as a locus for boycotting is appropriate in this case. It's easy enough to be a member of some group and have no idea what the heck is going on anyway.
ETA: Brian, in the comments, clarifies his position: he's only boycotting HWA-branded/themed events/books etc. not individual HWA members.