John Scalzi said he wanted to have absolutely nothing to do with the racefail 09 debate, and would ban anyone who brings the debate to his blog.
This non statement, and non communication, caused intense outrage, resulting in massive attack on John Scalzi, since all good leftists have to enthusiastically agree with the correct line, and failure to join the chant about the badness of various people under attack is itself a great and terrible sin.
One of the posters on his blog explains why Scalzi is now under attack:
the reason you [John Scalzi] drew ire is your inability to follow proper protocol:
- Acknowledge that you’re wrong, and guilty on all counts of whatever the other party accuses you, and
- agree with the accuser on just how very, very wrong you are/were, while knowing that any level of self-debasement isn’t going to be enough to placate them.
Clearly, the only thing that would begin to set things right would be your ritual suicide, hurling yourself into a bonfire fueled by everything you’ve ever written on- or offline. Don’t forget to put it on YouTube, accompanied by a ten-page manifesto on the magnitude of your wrongness, and the corresponding rightness of the accuser.
In response, Scalzi apologized profusely, and proceeded piously to post a lot of politically correct piety about race in literature, indirectly demonizing all his friends, allies, and supporters, without, however, directly addressing the debate concerning the sinfulness of various actual writers and bloggers.
Come on. That is not good enough. In your repentance, you need to directly condemn as many people as possible.
This is just about the stupidest interpretation of what happened that I’ve seen to date, and I’ve seen a fair number of stupid interpretations about it. I’d suggest you go back and read it all again, slowly, to comprehend what actually happened, but it’s reasonably clear you have polemic point to make, regardless of whether it actually applies to the circumstance. So never mind.
So in what, specifically is it incorrect?
Your apology starts off with “I am an arrogant schmuck”, and explains how the people abusing you are actually wise and good.
Which to those of us who are inclined to doubt their wiseness and goodness looks like a lot of groveling.
The Racefail 09 orthodoxy is that being against racism gives one privileged knowledge of what is going on inside other people’s heads – and if anyone disagrees with this orthodoxy, they are racist.
You have conceded this orthodoxy, have acknowledged that being against racism gives people who hate you privileged and superior knowledge of what is in someone else’s head.
Que?
I followed a link hoping to learn something, or at least read something interesting, but I’ve gotta agree with Scalzi – this is as stupid and whiney as anything dumped out on Livejournal by the Racefail zealots, and with even less reason. Two wasted minutes of my life I won’t get back.
[…] John Scalzi’s propensity for terrified whimpering grovelling before leftists has led Heartiste to coin a new word “Scalziedâ€: When men are scalzied manboobs and women are […]
[…] about … science fiction? Rather than a linkfest of references to RaceFail and the abuse of Orson Scott Card, here is a personal […]