But many of the people spewing vitriol seem to be doing so under their own names, or at least easily identifiable identities.The fact that one can post under a pseudonym allows many people out there to spew vitriol just because they can.
In what sense do you mean "taking sides?" I guess it depends on what issues we're talking about here. On the posting Hugo eligibility thing, I'm of the "sure, why not" persuasion. I'm not going to make my decision based on anyone lobbying for themselves, and do find it helpful when I need to figure out where a story fits into the Hugos baffling division of short fiction into three (rather than the customary two) categories.I agree with him. It's the self-righteousness of many modern commentators that annoys me so much, and the continual need on both sides of the spectrum to find thought criminals and insult them instead of actually discussing anything. And people with sincere, moderate views are generally ignored or attacked for not being sufficiently extreme. This is, frankly, a great time to be a crank or a neurotic with an axe to grind, and the internet only makes it easier.
By the way, Nerd's Feather, what side do you tend to take, if you don't mind me asking? I've never noticed that you fell on any particular side, but I may have missed it.
It's great PR. Sting nailed this a few years ago when he "casually remarked" (just before his new album was coming out) that ecstasy was an interesting substance.On a slightly different note, it occurred to me that I've never heard of either MacFarlane or Correia (despite his claim of shifting a squillion copies) before. I have heard of Alastair Reynolds, though. I doubt there's anything much to be made of this, except that it's probably more productive to focus on your writing than wade wholeheartedly into the "debate". Besides, space is a big place. There's room for everyone.
Trouble is that the above is an ad hominem attack where you go from misdirected and turn it into a opinion about him having a child's tantrum.As far as the binary/non-binary gender issue goes, I'd probably describe my own feelings as a more moderate version of MacFarlane's. I do really want to see more of that too, but it's not something that makes or breaks a story for me, as it evidently can be for her. But I also found Correia's reply to be as misdirected and unnecessarily bilious as Reynolds did--a tantrum worthy of a child, really. And some of the comments I've seen are downright bizarre--alleging MacFarlane is "forcing" things on them--this via an opinion piece posted on a blog, which last time I checked had no official policing capacity.
And I agree it doesn't look like a tantrum to me either, but the person I was quoting thought it did.
See:Trouble is that the above is an ad hominem attack where you go from misdirected and turn it into a opinion about him having a child's tantrum.
...for a primer on what "ad hominem attack" actually means.Saying something is 'a tantrum worthy of a child' is not, strictly, an ad hominem attack. (Saying "Joe Bloggs, as usual, is throwing one of his trademark tantrums" probably is.) The key to identifying an ad hominem attack is deciding whether the target is the person or one of their specific statements.
Bingo.Sorry, but you are inferring an ad hominem attack, not seeing one. Sometimes adults do throw tantrums worthy of a child. Pointing this out is not calling those adults children. (And the way to defend the person accused of throwing a tantrum is to point out why it wasn't a tantrum, not accuse someone of using an ad hominem attack.)
I linked to it in the other thread, on Post-Binary Gender in SF. Had sort of hoped to keep this discussion on the civility front, and not on the relative merits of the various arguments put forth there, but we'll see where this goes...