More Worldcon Thoughts
We all knew I’d end up posting a follow-up to yesterday’s piece about Worldcon’s expulsion of Dave Truesdale, right?
A lot more information has come out in the past 24 hours. At this point, it’s obvious from what’s been shared publicly that Dave Truesdale violated multiple items of Worldcon’s posted code of conduct, and that this was something done with a great deal of planning and forethought.
The more we learn about Truesdale’s actions, the more it’s become clear to me that the con made the right call in kicking his ass out. Not for his political beliefs. Not for derailing a panel or utterly failing to do his job as moderator. But for his planned and deliberate disruption of the convention. He also recorded (and intends to publish) panelists without their knowledge or consent, among other things.
(And there are other things as well, some of which have not been shared publicly. I don’t know when or if that will change.)
#
Part of my frustration yesterday was that Worldcon put Truesdale on this panel as moderator to begin with. He’s someone whose over-the-top rants I’ve been aware of for years, if not decades, including his conflicts with Eugie Foster, his hostility toward attempts at inclusiveness and spotlighting authors traditionally excluded from the genre, his behavior after the SFWA Bulletin cover mess a few years back, and much more.
As one person put it on Twitter, “Truesdale’s gonna Truesdale.”
A number of people pushed back on this, and made good and valid points about how much we can expect programming volunteers to know about the history and background of their panelists and moderators.
I find myself thinking of last year, when I was editing Invisible 2, and ended up running a blog post by someone who was known in other circles to be…problematic, at best. I had no clue. One suggestion (which I’m hoping to follow) was that I needed a co-editor who might be more aware of areas like that. Ultimately, that mess was my responsibility as editor. But is it fair to expect me to have vetted all of my potential contributors?
And I only had about twenty. Worldcon has a hell of a lot more.
The programming mess at World Fantasy Con also comes to mind. There’s a general sense that WFC should have known what they were getting when they put Darrel Schweitzer in charge of programming. But then, there’s a difference between selecting someone to run your entire programming division vs. going through all of the volunteer panelists and moderators.
Ideally, I do think there should be awareness of who’s being put on panels, and recognition that when you put someone like Truesdale in charge of a panel, there’s a good chance you’re gonna get a dumpster fire. But that’s easier said than done. We’re not all online. We’re not all in the same circles.
I don’t have an answer on this one, but I welcome people’s thoughts.
#
A note to myself for future reference: Posting something potentially inflammatory before spending most of the day away from the internet and visiting friends? Bad idea…
#
We’ve seen the predictable whining that the thought-police banned Truesdale for his beliefs. If that was the case, then I do think that would be a problem.
But that’s bullshit. Truesdale was banned for his actions.
That’s a really important distinction to me, and sometimes it’s a confusing or complicated line to try to draw. It’s one of the things I was concerned about yesterday, when less was known. Now, this is about me personally. I don’t expect or demand everyone to agree with me on this — I’m not sure I can even explain it that well — but that distinction between trying to judge people’s beliefs vs. judging based on their actions is pretty much a core principle for me. (Even if, being human myself, I sometimes fail to perfectly live up to it.)
I hope that made sense.
#
In conclusion, from what I’ve seen now, Dave was kicked out for his actions, which violated multiple aspects of the code of conduct. And I’m okay with that. (The kicking out part, not the violating the code of conduct part…)
Also, yesterday gave me a bit of internet burnout. I’ll keep reading comments, but I probably won’t be responding/posting much more today.
Worldcon Expels Truesdale
August 21, 2016 @ 2:26 pm
[…] blog post at http://www.jimchines.com/2016/08/more-worldcon-thoughts/ (You knew I’d end up doing a follow-up on this one, […]
Sally
August 21, 2016 @ 6:48 pm
Whereas MRK did it accidentally, apologized, took her punishment like an adult, and commended the concom for their actions.
Jim C. Hines
August 21, 2016 @ 6:54 pm
The contrast there is remarkable, isn’t it?
(Link for those who haven’t seen it: http://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/midamericon-ii-badge-just-suspended-awesome/ )
Eleanor C Ray
August 21, 2016 @ 8:01 pm
Jim, I must agree, there is a *very* important distinction between beliefs and actions. And one thing people seem to forget is that *words are actions*. Your respect toward people with different beliefs from yours is appropriate. So is your ability to draw the distinction between actions and thoughts. Thank you.
Jim C. Hines
August 21, 2016 @ 8:10 pm
“And one thing people seem to forget is that *words are actions*.”
Yep. And thank you.
MatGB
August 21, 2016 @ 11:52 pm
ended up running a blog post by someone who was known in other circles to be…problematic, at best. I had no clue.
I am uncomfortable with aspects of this approach—and I have no knowledge of the specifics of the case you cite here, I’m talking in generalities. Sometimes, people can be experts in a particular field, generally on side with the idea that we should be in an inclusive and tolerant society, but have blind spots. Sometimes those blind spots can go over the verge and into outright bigotry.
If you’re preparing something on a particular area, and an expert in that area is prepared or wants to contribute something that, in and of itself, is good work that is unproblematic except in the name attached, and their problematic behavior/history is in something else entirely, isn’t essentially an ad hominem to reject their work because of other, unrelated things they’ve done?
I genuinely don’t know the answer to that one, which is why I’m uncomfortable with the suggestion, I suspect there has to be an accepted gray area and a case-by-case decision making, but—again without knowing the specifics—I don’t like the idea that you’re blamed for not knowing something about someone that had nothing to do with the work they’d submitted for a completely different thing.
And yeah, it perhaps was a bad call to schedule Truesdale (I’d heard of him before and it’s not really my field), and perhaps worse to schedule him and not ensure he wasn’t fully briefed on what was expected of him. But the blame is basically his because it was completely obvious that what he was doing was both pre-planned and not what he, the panelists and the audience were there for. The contrast with MRK’s reaction is indicative.
KatG
August 22, 2016 @ 12:12 am
Truesdale of course wrote the infamous petition to SFWA about made-up concerns about the Bulletin revamp in which he mused as to whether women getting the vote was a mistake because evil feminism and complained that he should be able to discuss oogling women’s bodies without any women authors complaining they were being treated unprofessionally. He just wants to spew nonsense and push women out of the field. (They’ve been there since the beginning, so good luck with that.) And since no one will let him rant about women and others without criticism, he decided to take over a panel and shut up a bunch of major editors asked to speak on short fiction — so much for their free speech. But Sheila Williams was apparently patient and amazing and turned him into a puddle. I would have just walked out and gotten con security.
So he’s not important in the field, but he is notorious. I find it hard to believe that whoever scheduled panels didn’t know who he was and that making him a panel moderator was a bad idea and hostile to the women authors and editors who might be stuck with him. But maybe he has pals among the old guard who assumed he would behave.
How much you want to bet that the only parts of that recording he made that he releases will be his diatribe and any snippets that he thinks makes him look good? It’s really with these guys like dealing with teenagers who like to scream that it’s their keg party and they’ll do what they want, including rolling the neighbors’ car.
Muccamukk
August 22, 2016 @ 3:12 am
Right, but if their problematic behaviour was very much in the same area as the stated purpose of the collection they’re taking part in…
Like it’s one thing to say, “here’s an excellent essay about the health benefits of kale… whoops this person stumped for the Wrong Guy last election, he’s out!” and another to say, “This person wrote about the technical side space exploration, oh wait, they have a history of campaigning against NASA funding because they genuinely believe that the moon landing was filmed in northern Saskatchewan, so maybe not.”
Martin
August 22, 2016 @ 4:06 am
I always try not only to see what people do but also why they do it. While “person is an asshole” may be a suitable explanation, it is rarely a good one.
My guess is that the prime motivation is “getting attention”. Attention is becoming a currency. You can turn attention into money and power and it is therefore well convertible, maybe even better than money.
Gamergate, the Puppies, Trump & Co, they all have discovered attention as a business model. They are literally living off the attention they get from saying and doing outrageous things.
By paying too much attention to such people, we a) pay their rent and b) spend time and effort that could be better invested into furthering the things important to us.
Throw him out, lock the thoughts about him in a mental cell and loose the keys.
steve davidson
August 22, 2016 @ 8:08 am
purely speculative on my part, but my suspicion is this was Truesdale’s bid to become a Very Important Puppy and any follow-ons are really unnecessary as the goal of “disrupting Worldcon” has already been achieved.
Of course, the tape will be mined for useful sound bites, and no doubt some out of context quotes will surface at appropriate times to prove a point about SJWs and the sekrit kabal that runs all of fandom. (They’re already using “suppression” of the tape as proof of nefariousness.)
I was aware of Dave well before the internet; I even wrote a few reviews for his online site and was asked to sign the Bulletin petition (which I read and then declined); he was of the knowledgeable-yet-rigid-right-leaning fan variety, and when he talked about wanting to preserve Traditional Fandom, we are/were in agreement. Where we diverged was in interpretation of what that means: I try to embrace the INTENT of traditional fandom – openness, diversity – not the manner in which it was historically expressed.
As for the expulsion: Worldcon has thousands of “customers” and, with the institution of conduct codes AND the willingness to enforce them regardless of the fallout (see MRK suspension) has finally matured in its customer service realm. Too often I’ve seen businesses forget that ALL of their customers are more important than a single customer. The knowledge that Worldcan can and has acted in the interest of the community over the individual will put it in a better position in years to come.
Rogers Cadenhead
August 22, 2016 @ 9:35 am
“A lot more information has come out in the past 24 hours.”
I have looked for information on what Dave Truesdale said from people who were there and come up pretty empty. As far as I can determine, he began the panel with a boorish, pre-planned, off-topic introduction attacking political correctness and “snowflakes” taking offense that lasted 10 minutes until the crowd had had enough. The rest of the panel continued and at least one participant, Jonathan Strahan, said all his interactions with Truesdale were cordial. All the panelists got to speak at length after the crowd revolt.
There’s a great photo of Neil Clarke with his back turned as Truesdale continues reading his introduction. The panelists are not amused.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EQCqOvpKGV4/V7hiud7U_dI/AAAAAAAARSo/sumqtBTRzsQNsdkAO9PofMbj0lK-hTycwCL0B/w1253-h835-no/DSC04590.JPG
Recording for personal archival use is allowed under the MidAmericon Full Code of Conduct, as long as you stop if someone tells you to stop. It’s not clear whether Truesdale was recording for that purpose or always intended to publish it.
Personally, I’d like to know more about what he said and did before deciding that the con made the right move. I’ve seen enough panels with wheels-off moderators over the years to know that you shouldn’t always ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Strahan said this on Facebook Saturday in a public post: “I need to confirm this, but I hope to arrange an episode of the Coode St Podcast with Gordon, Sheila, and Neil where we can discuss the state of short fiction, and then make it available to MidAmericon 2 members who may have been at the panel and didn’t get the conversation they’d been hoping for.”
Ken Houghton
August 22, 2016 @ 9:38 am
It’s possibly true that it would require ignorance, idiocy, or being brain-dead to let him moderate a panel.
Or it might be done by a WorldCon programmer who hasn’t slept in two months and knows he’s local (no worries about sudden cancellation) and has published a ‘zine about short fiction for over twenty years.
I’m inclined to give Programming the benefit of (a lot of) doubt. Especially since the ConCom acted quickly and correctly.
The past through tomorrow | Alec Nevala-Lee
August 22, 2016 @ 10:07 am
[…] for expressing an unpopular opinion. But that isn’t really what happened. As another blogger correctly observes, the participant wasn’t expelled for his words, but for his actions: he deliberately derailed a […]
Josh
August 22, 2016 @ 10:37 am
> This person wrote about the technical side space exploration
Yeah, and there’s also a difference between “rejecting their work” and “not inviting them to live events”. If that person wrote something really excellent and interesting about the technical side of space exploration, folks should totally read it and discuss it and praise it and so on. But if every time that person speaks in public about the moon landing, they start screaming about Saskatchewan, you don’t invite them to run a panel about the history of the moon landing.
Jim C. Hines
August 22, 2016 @ 11:35 am
That’s a good point. In the particular case I was referring to, knowing this individual’s background would have clued me into the fact that his essay was more about nursing a private grudge and attacking someone he disliked, and that this was a pattern of his.
In general, I think it’s going to be a judgement call on whether or not their other poor behavior is relevant and related to what you’re inviting them to do, or if it’s likely to have an impact on the event.
Pat Sayre McCoy
August 22, 2016 @ 2:04 pm
Quoting Ken Houghton “It’s possibly true that it would require ignorance, idiocy, or being brain-dead to let him moderate a panel.
Or it might be done by a WorldCon programmer who hasn’t slept in two months and knows he’s local (no worries about sudden cancellation) and has published a ‘zine about short fiction for over twenty years.”
Or it’s possible that it was done by a substitute Head of Programming with a couple of months notice who honestly 1) didn’t know about Truesdale or 2) missed this potential problem in the final programming editing, usually done on almost no sleep and far too much caffeine. I’d give him a break on this one. Been there, done that.
Rogers Cadenhead
August 22, 2016 @ 2:35 pm
Dave Truesdale has posted audio of the panel (54 minutes long):
http://www.tangentonline.com/articles-columnsmenu-284/3227-2016-worldcon-panel-on-the-qstate-of-short-science-fictionq
I listened to the entire panel. I don’t see how his Worldcon expulsion was justified unless he did things outside the panel I’m not aware of.
He hogged the mic for the first 5 minutes with his boorish rant against political correctness in science fiction. Sheila Williams jumped in and spoke for several minutes, trying to steer the panel to more constructive discussion.
He then tried one more time to deliver the rest of his rant at length, but a few minutes in, Sheila interceded again and he changed his approach. He started asking panelists to talk instead of reading his text. The other panelists cordially challenged his premise and the last 35 minutes were a pretty normal, respectful discussion in which all the panelists contributed.
Truesdale is guilty of trying to hijack a panel with his own agenda, which only weakly related to the “State of Short Fiction,” but I didn’t hear him directly insult any other panelist or audience member. Nor was he insulted.
The only strongly objectionable misbehavior I heard was when somebody in the crowd yelled at Neil Clarke to call him intolerant. But Clarke defused that situation deftly and things calmed down immediately.
Jim C. Hines
August 22, 2016 @ 2:40 pm
I listened to half of it. It showed that Dave hijacked more than half the panel for his own ridiculous crusade, despite repeated attempts by the rest of the panel to drag things back on topic.
I added more notes about this at http://www.jimchines.com/2016/08/worldcon-expels-truesdale/
P. Aaron Potter
August 22, 2016 @ 4:04 pm
Where is my “thumbs up” button?
Many years ago, in a business marketing class, my wife heard the story of how a spaghetti sauce manufacturer had realized that, counter to intuition, it’s possible to build a successful brand by appealing to extremists. If 12 companies are already fighting over the 90% of the consumers with ‘mainstream’ tastes, if 1 company decided to serve the 10% fringe, they end up with a better market share.
The Breitbart model of niche-consumer pandering has demonstrated for years that the regressive fringe has enough market pull left that one can make a living. All you need is a dog-whistle stunt like this, and the defenders of freeze peach will emerge from the woodwork.
Happily, analysis of this year’s Hugo nominations vs. final voting data suggests that the alt-right’s attention spans are too short for real effectiveness. Let them feed one another, ouroboros-style. But stop providing them platforms.
Bbz
August 22, 2016 @ 5:31 pm
Did he not also attribute his words to the late David Hartwell?
Grant Watson
August 22, 2016 @ 8:35 pm
Having co-programmed a Worldcon in the past (Aussiecon 4), I can say from experience it is very easy to accidentally put less-than-ideal panelists onto a discussion because the program is huge, and you don’t necessarily know all of the potential panelists or have ever seen them in front of an audience before. Listening to advice and suggestions from others helps, but only if people actually think to let you know.
Rogers Cadenhead
August 22, 2016 @ 8:55 pm
He quoted something Hartwell said the day before he died about how SF/F fans were welcoming and inclusive.
Gary Denton
August 22, 2016 @ 9:09 pm
I am sure Geeks Guide to the Galaxy at Wired would like to do an episode on the state of short fiction.
SheilaT
August 23, 2016 @ 12:53 am
I was at WorldCon, and only peripherally heard about Truesdale’s expulsion, and that only because I was passing by the SFWA space where a couple of the pros were, and they mentioned what had happened. I’m slightly surprised it wasn’t a huge ripple through the Con. Maybe I hang out with the wrong people.
In any case, while I wasn’t at that panel, it’s pretty clear to me that Truesdale was more than out of bounds with what he did. As a woman, I’m heartily sick of white hetero men crying piteously about how they’ve been excluded from everything. Really? While we may be getting ready to elect a woman as President, there are still only three women on the Supreme Court. For almost 200 years it was only men there, and I’d like to see every single nominee be a woman until we have nine women justices, and then only women for about 200 years. Oh, and just how many CEOs are some sort of minority? How about college presidents? Members of Congress? State legislatures? Governors? Mayors? When we finally get some sort of parity, meaning women, African Americans, Asians, and any other minority that can be identified, are in such positions of power in accordance to their numbers, that will then be actual equality. And even then white men like this Truesdale guy will have no reason to complain.
As has been pointed out, this was a private function, and Truesdale attempted to hijack the panel to rant about his particular grievance, which he had absolutely no right to do. The more I learn, the more glad I am he was tossed out.
Andriy
August 23, 2016 @ 3:57 pm
Good Day. Time , when all talk. But answer all know. Dont panic & protect work. My English very bad, sory.
ctein
August 23, 2016 @ 7:03 pm
Dear Ken,
(Not directed specifically at you, but at the general topic you’re addressing and I’d like to keep things threaded…)
Apologies in advance for what is likely to be longissimus, non legi. It is my way… [wry grimace]
Two points:
1) Decades ago I did convention programming and I gave it up because (one) it’s a lot of work and I’m selfish and (two) it is an unusually thankless job. People don’t praise programming for getting it right; they only criticize it for getting it wrong. Rather like the mail service— you ignore it until it doesn’t deliver [ahem].
Lest you think I am exaggerating: After programming had closed but before the reading slots were fixed, I made a last-minute request of Programming, which was to find out if they could manage to schedule David Gerrold and I together so that we could read from the novel we are collaborating on. If you don’t know the logistics of programming, this is not an insane request, but it does involve a lot more coordination and comparing schedules and available rooms. Reading slots are always in short supply and I was coming in late in the game.
They wrote back and said that of course they could not promise anything but they do their best to see if they could make it happen (it did). So, I merely wrote them a polite, kinda-pro-forma thank you for their efforts and that I appreciated the work they were putting in because, well it’s the polite thing to do. (It was also true.)
I got back this effusive (almost embarrassingly so) e-mail. They were just so pleased and grateful that someone had actually thanked them for something and understood the work they were putting. I think I just made a best friend for life without even trying.
That’s how rarely programming *doesn’t* get taken for granted.
2) Programmers maintain lists of known troublemakers. There are some people you will never see on a major convention’s program. There are others who will be allowed on panels but not allowed to moderate for the same reason. The information gets passed on. It’s not cast in stone, it’s not like some kind of Inter-fannish Death Penalty. It’s just keeping track of folks you know will not be good at doing the job they are offering to do.
It is neither an exhaustive nor encyclopedic list, and it doesn’t extend much beyond behavior at conventions, because, as I said, no IfDP, and there is no reason it should. There are a few way-off-the-scale exceptions. I’m pretty sure no concom, except one of like-minded individuals, is going to put Vox Day on a panel.
Some of you are saying, well, how could Programming NOT know about Truesdale? Well, it’s easy. I knew all about the SFWA business (some of you know me as a regular at Whatever), and I was distressed when I saw that some friends of mine had gotten suckered into signing that misbegotten petition. But the guy who created it? I forgot his name in a matter of days. Not worth the brain space. (Hell, I don’t even remember Vox Day’s other name.)
And even if I had, that wouldn’t indicate to me that he shouldn’t be on panels. In fact, what indications there are on the matter point to him being capable of being an entirely responsible panelist. Would I have made him a moderator? No idea— probably not, he talks too much. But, really, his plan didn’t require him to be moderator. It only required that he get ahold of the microphone, which would happen as soon as he got to make an opening statement. This whole moderator thing is a red herring.
Well, really, the whole question of whether programming screwed up is a red herring.
pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
— Ctein’s Online Gallery http://ctein.com
— Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
ctein
August 23, 2016 @ 7:17 pm
Dear folks,
I wouldn’t expel Truesdale for “expressing an unpopular opinion.” I’d expel him expressing an unpopular opinion that is in the specific subset of those that are a bigoted attack upon someone else.
I’m entirely fine with being intolerant of bigotry. I don’t feel obligated to listen to the prejudiced rant about their prejudices, and I don’t feel obligated to give them a soapbox. The free marketplace of ideas does not value all ideas equally, and even if this were free market place (which it is not) I do not have to put up with the fellow who wants to open up a stall next to mine offering up fresh human feces for sale.
Or, if it really is a FREE AND OPEN market, I’m entirely free organize my fellow stall-owners to run him out of town on a rail and burn down his tent (pweeuuuuuu). If I’m not, well, then guess what? It’s regulated!
If Truesdale has singled out a particular woman and/or person of color in the room and laid his trip on them, he would’ve absolutely been thrown out of the convention for a violation of the Code of Conduct for that, and nobody except the MRA’s (and that A does not stand for activist) would see it as anything other than a code-violating direct attack.
Ummm, so, when he does it, en masse, to women and people of color at the convention it becomes acceptable? This smacks of the all too accurate observation, “One death is a tragedy, 1,000,000 are a statistic.”
To go all Godwin, just for the sake of hyperbole, explicitly pro-Nazi propaganda can be considered “an unpopular opinion.” (I hope!) Anybody here think that’s acceptable fodder for a WorldCon?
Sound of crickets.
If folks want to argue about whether the opinions that Truesdale expressed crossed the line out of the realm of the acceptable, that’s one thing. To suggest that that is not legitimate grounds for ejection is ridiculous. It’s our club; we collectively get to decide how big an asshole we’re willing to tolerate someone being before we don’t want them in our club.
pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
— Ctein’s Online Gallery http://ctein.com
— Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
ctein
August 23, 2016 @ 7:21 pm
damn, sloppy proffreading [sic]
“If Truesdale has singled…”
should have been
“If Truesdale had singled…”
In other words, a hypothetical about something I do not believe happened, rather than an insinuation that it did.
pax / errant Ctein
Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little
August 23, 2016 @ 10:55 pm
In fact, he quoted Andy Duncan who was quoting Hartwell during their final phone conversation. Duncan gives more context here, and disagrees with the way Truesdale spun it.
https://www.facebook.com/andy.duncan.39794/posts/10153835799422467
CHip
August 24, 2016 @ 11:24 am
As someone who has worked conventions for >40 years, I know very well that volunteers can only do so much. However:
* Sensible volunteers buttress and cross-check each other, and are open to this when it is offered (if not actively searching for it). From what I’ve read, Truesdale has a record that \somebody/ should have been able to point out.
* If nobody knew anything about him, he shouldn’t have been the moderator. Putting unknowns on a panel happens; if a particular unknown fails enough times, they become known (i.e., notorious). Making an unknown a moderator is bad planning, just as it’s bad planning to put someone unknown in charge of a critical area.
ctein
August 24, 2016 @ 2:19 pm
Dear CHip,
Gotta say I can’t agree with how “critical” this is. I’ve been on plenty of panels where it ended up that the moderator was the only person who offered to do so to Programming, or, in some cases, the one who resisted the least. They all worked fine. Most panelists can moderate a normal panel, if they have to, well enough to get by.
Sure, it’s always better to have someone who’s good as well as enthusiastic about it. But it’s not a major fail when you don’t get that.
The only time I’ve experienced it going very badly is when Programming doesn’t assign a moderator and, when everyone shows up, the most dominant/biggest-mouthed person declares themselves the moderator. Oooh, that never ends well.
Further, I would repeat, Truesdale only needed to physically gain control of a mike to pull his shtick. He didn’t need the moderator position to do it. He’s behaved well on other panels (‘cept he talks too much, so, really not the best of moderators, but then I’ve been guilty of that and I’m considered a very good moderator so, whatever).
Can we stop ragging on programming? Sooo beside the point.
pax / Ctein
Greg
August 25, 2016 @ 1:44 pm
Truesdale’s definition of “Golden Age” appears to be “back when everyone was white, male, het”. And his rant was way off topic of the actual panel. And he planned this well before it started, and recorded it to “prove” he was right despite it violating to code of conduct.
He was clearly trying to refight old fights he’d lost previously. (Sfwa cover, etc). And given his planning before that involved releasing the recording after, he may have been trying to score points with other regressives such as the puppies and their ilk.
The con was clearly correct in cutting him loose.
Pixel Scroll 9/19/16 Scroll Like A Pixel Day | File 770
September 19, 2016 @ 9:33 pm
[…] for expressing an unpopular opinion. But that isn’t really what happened. As another blogger correctly observes, the participant wasn’t expelled for his words, but for his actions: he deliberately derailed a […]