The Great Heinlein Juveniles Plus The Other Two Reread 10: Time for the Stars

[james_davis_nicoll]

In which archaic sexism and racism provide unwelcome distraction from dubious physics: Time for the Stars by Robert A. Heinlein


As ever, corrections will not be dealt with until I get home tonight.

Comments

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

Of course you didn't deserve it on any level. I wasn't giving Nick a rhetorical out. I was pointing out the rhetorical lever he used to be an ass. I've never noticed what you say about gender ratios, I will start paying attention.

The thing is, this is how Nick does it: he was full of shit in the subthread you point out, but in the post you link to, he doesn't say, clearly or otherwise, that the anon went back and deleted and reposted their comment. In a parent comment to that one, he said he took a screenshot "on the off-chance you quickly edited," which is impossible except through a chain of hugely unlikely circumstances. Then he saved his ass with a bunch of technical what-the-words-actually-mean fancy footwork. This is, as I say, bullshit, and it's the kind he pulls when he's on shaky ground. And you're right that it was unfair to James, as well as to you. But he was actually telling the technical truth when he said he never told the anon that. He's very careful about that kind of thing, which is why he gets away with it. It is a certain kind of rhetorical skill, although not an admirable one. I do notice it. That's why I brought it up.

Next time I'll address this to Nick in the moment. As I say, I'm sorry I didn't. At the time I didn't want even more of the conversation to be about him, but in retrospect I was also wimping out.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

Huh. No, actually, he very clearly says that anonymous comments can be deleted and reposted as long as the editing is done before someone has replied to them. He continues, to the same anon: "Not only are you likely to do it, you actually have done it."

If you want to think the use of the pronoun "it" makes things unclear and that, technically, Nick is completely right because he changed the meaning of "it" after the fact, thus saving his ass, that's your prerogative.

A final note: mme_hardy makes good points, and I'd just like to note that, in conjunction with her comments, all this screencapping and saving of links of things women have said was being done by the same guy who linked Sriduangkaew with her troll personae. And he admitted in his own words that he'd always told her to come out, and when she didn't, he took it upon himself to decide the situation was "getting dangerous" so he "stepped in" with his ello post. Then he went to great and sloppy lengths, as mme_hardy pointed out, to justify his actions as not outing.

Just a couple things to think about.

[seth ellis (from livejournal.com)]

I'm not saying Nick is "completely right". He does say that posts can be deleted and reposted, that's the unlikely chain of events I mentioned. The exchange after that is:

Anon: Though nice touch, trying to dismiss my credibility by implying that I'm likely to want to hide evidence, or change my words.

Nick: Not only are you likely to do it, you actually have done it, with your "stupid" schtick.

I don't think that's unclear, "it" refers to the back-and-forth about who said what was stupid, above that. He is implying that anon is capable of editing a reply if they could, which is a dick move, and he doesn't acknowledge that this would require James' extremely unlikely collusion, which is a dicker move, but he did not, technically, say that they did. Again, that's how he gets away with it, and that's why I think it's worth pointing out.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

LOL

Nah, man, Nick gets away with it because of his years and years of personal branding, his choice of targets, plus a host of reasons within the fandom that always come up during every kerfuffle, fail and scandal.