a note on John C. Wright

[calimac]

Perhaps I'm about written out about Puppygate, because I can't think of anything urgent I want to say about anything I've read on the subject in the last few days. I think my earlier posts on 4/13, 4/14, and 4/16, plus two comments I made to George R.R. Martin's LJ (those are here and here) cover pretty much what I have to say.

I would, however, like to add here a personal note about John C. Wright, one of the principal Puppies. (And I have some thoughts about the Passion of Larry Correia for, perhaps, later on.)

Mr Wright first came to my notice back in the 1990s, when we were both members of the online network GEnie. I think this was before he converted from atheism to Catholicism, but he struck me as just as much an extreme right-winger then as he is today.

He and I tangled on one point, as I recall. During the Clinton impeachment/trial, Mr Wright stated that Mr Clinton's prevarications on his relationship with Ms Lewinsky were a clear case of perjury, a transparent case of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and that the President should therefore be removed.

I started to write here that Mr Wright "was of the opinion that ..." but I changed it, because Mr Wright does not traffic in opinions. To him, everything is either an inarguable fact or it is not.

He was consequently quite perturbed when I argued with it. I held that Clinton's weaseling did not actually meet the strict legal definition of perjury, and that, as a matter of actual trial practice, in an ordinary legal case with the facts of the Kathleen Willey suit, one involving some ordinary business executive and not the President of the United States, no D.A. would bother trying to prosecute the businessman for perjury. And I backed this up with legal citations for the former point (I worked in a law library at the time; sources were easy) and newspaper interviews with prosecutors raising this very question for the latter.

My perhaps rosy recollection is that Mr Wright sputtered with indignation at my refusal to accept his Inarguable Facts and my temerity at presenting sources to argue the point.

But that incident is background. The real point about Mr Wright came later.

A year or two further on, I found myself in agreement with Mr Wright on some point in dispute in a GEnie conversation. I don't remember what this one was. The point is that Mr Wright posted in astonishment that I agreed with him this time. I replied that I took my positions based on my beliefs of the facts in the case, and not by pre-determined alliances or animosities.

That's as far as that conversation went, but I found it interesting. Most people I know, certainly those I respect, take the attitude I do of sticking with the facts as they appear to them. In the course of many conversations on disputed topics, alliances and the lack of them shift constantly.

But that seemed strange to Mr Wright. In disputing his Inarguable Facts, I had in his view declared him an Enemy whom I would fight on all fronts, fair or foul. How bizarre that I should then quietly ally myself with him on some other issue. It blew his tiny mind.

I think that says a lot about Puppygate, too.

Comments

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Right wingers do have a tendency to assume that they are....ahem....always right.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

They're not the only ones. Behaving as if they are in possession of the Inarguable Facts is the characteristic right-wing fallacy. The characteristic left-wing one is to behave as if their position is objective but yours is biased.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Indeed, it does. I'm pretty sure a bunch of the Puppies are convinced that I am Out To Get Them because I'm such an ardent defender (in both my official and unofficial capacities) of WSFS rules including the Hugos. Some of them were at first convinced that I was their Friend when I repeatedly pointed out that as far as I can tell, nothing they did was illegal. But check out their reaction when I also pointed out that it's not only legal, but traditional within Worldcon fandom, to vote any work below No Award if you think it didn't deserve to be on the ballot at all for any reason, including a perception that its supporters violated the social norms of our community to get on the ballot. As you know, this significantly predates their appearance on the scene (the Scientology exploit being one of the highest-profile examples). They react in outrage that I am Out to Get Them and insist that nobody should vote No Award for that reason. I've pointed out in no uncertain terms that each person's vote belongs to that person, and that there is no way to dictate to that person how he or she is allowed to exercise that vote. You can't climb inside their heads.

The idea that someone could be a defender of rules and procedure, rather than focusing solely upon "my candidate must win," seems to boggle them. To be fair, this attitude is not limited to the Puppies.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

"To be fair, this attitude is not limited to the Puppies."

Indeed. In an earlier post, I wrote, "I hope that those condemning this procedure [slate voting] would feel the same were the slate of an opposite political complexion, though I have no confidence that all of them would."

[voidampersand.livejournal.com]

You can see there is less fervent opposition to the slate nominees in Best Dramatic Presentation that are not political and not crap.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

True. But:

1) It's hard to believe that Interstellar wouldn't have made the final ballot regardless of Puppy endorsement or not;

2) I have seen criticism of the Rabid choice of Game of Thrones episode as the worst one of the season;

3) The point isn't about whether you like or dislike individual slate nominees, but about how you feel concerning the concept of a slate and whether what's on it reflects that. The presence of Interstellar on the slate doesn't seem to have resulted in less vehement anti-slate feeling, and I'm on record as liking the since-withdrawn Annie Bellet story, but I'm still vehemently anti-slate, although I accept the need for a counter-slate once the water has been fouled.

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

I think you're one of the few people I know of any political persuasion who is always able to remember that the other side of any argument is always a temporary grouping just for that particular argument. Most people I respect try to remember it, and most people I respect remember it most of the time, including me. Very few are as consistent about remember other people's inconsistency as you.

[bibliofile.livejournal.com]

When you put it that way, so logical & all, it seems so clear (possibly even "Duh"-worthy). If only everyone's brains worked so well.

See also activists who try to work to find common ground with people with whom they vehemently disagree on a topic. First, you have to realize that it's even possible....

[andrewducker]

In total agreement. I'll agree with people if I think they're right, and disagree if I think they're wrong. And I'd rather have friends tell me when they think I'm wrong, so that one of us can change our mind about things and we can _both_ be right.