[Flicky]

You can view the article at https://ufplanets.com/content.php?42...got-Fan-E-Mail

[Caymen Greener]

We should be careful with the word "bigot". While its definition could be used to describe the angry reader, it could also be used to describe someone who does not wish to enable or access another's beliefs. So if I don't agree with a person who believes murdering babies is ok, I am by definition a bigot. And I don't think people would use that negative descriptor in my scenario. So I would prefer the title of this article be changed to be less condescending to the person who was - albeit irately - expressing an opinion and distaste of a product.

That said, the reader was quite silly for not recognizing the core tenants of Trek, and for not trying to finish the book to see how things turned out.

However, if we're going to talk about tolerance, we need to accept that reader's beliefs as well (even if they write silly letters). Again, I think the word "bigot" is a bit strong for this situation.

[Cehus]

We should be careful with the word "bigot". While its definition could be used to describe the angry reader, it could also be used to describe someone who does not wish to enable or access another's beliefs. So if I don't agree with a person who believes murdering babies is ok, I am by definition a bigot. And I don't think people would use that negative descriptor in my scenario. So I would prefer the title of this article be changed to be less condescending to the person who was - albeit irately - expressing an opinion and distaste of a product.

That said, the reader was quite silly for not recognizing the core tenants of Trek, and for not trying to finish the book to see how things turned out.

However, if we're going to talk about tolerance, we need to accept that reader's beliefs as well (even if they write silly letters). Again, I think the word "bigot" is a bit strong for this situation.

Webster defines a bigot as follows:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

I'm going to focus on the second part of the definition. The person who David Mack was replying to said he would refuse to support Mr. Mack's future work because of one aspect, which according to NeoTrident in the thread posted in the Book Club forums was an inconsequential part of the story (I've not had a chance to read the book yet).

The title was not used to describe proponents of murdering children. It was used to describe someone who did not support a product due to homophobic beliefs. I think the title is perfectly acceptable as is.

I would be happy to discuss any further concerns that you may have about this or any story in private.

[NeoTrident]

Like with the other thread here I don't particularly want to enter into the moral discussion however I would have to agree with Caymen that the choice of wording is a little pointed.

[foolishowl]

In short, David Mack is spot-on.

Many times I've been moved to see just how much it matters to people I've known that they see characters who resemble them in the stories they enjoy -- and how hard they struggle to find any.

I used to follow a forum for fans of the Mass Effect series, and one day, I took a look at the subforum for fan art about the Asari, an alien race that was nominally without gender, but who were apparently all women. Most of the participants in that subforum were young women, who identified as bisexual or lesbian, and in a discussion of what they imagined it would be like to visit the Asari homeworld, one of them said that she was planning to go to university in another country, where she could go out on dates with another woman without being afraid she'd be violently attacked.

There is, after all, an important connection between imagining freedom, and actually achieving it.

[Caymen Greener]

Webster defines a bigot as follows:



I'm going to focus on the second part of the definition. The person who David Mack was replying to said he would refuse to support Mr. Mack's future work because of one aspect, which according to NeoTrident in the thread posted in the Book Club forums was an inconsequential part of the story (I've not had a chance to read the book yet).

The title was not used to describe proponents of murdering children. It was used to describe someone who did not support a product due to homophobic beliefs. I think the title is perfectly acceptable as is.

I would be happy to discuss any further concerns that you may have about this or any story in private.

Two issues here. By the definition of "bigot" (I looked them up and studied them before I replied the first time), Mack is a bigot too. He does not accept and in fact loathes the person's beliefs, spercifically as that person's beliefs tie to Trek. He went out of his way to quell the person's commentary, which is a form of bigotry.

Second, because the person chose to comment and does not agree with a view does not mean they need to have the negatively-charged colloqial definition of "bigot" applied. Yes, the person had silly reasoning for not reading the books, and is probably silly for not reading Trek because of a belief. But their writing to Mack and sharing their belief is not a wrongful act.

I don't need to talk in private - this title was a poor word choice, and I'm not the only one who sees it as such.

[Fizz]

Hey guys. I think we can all agree that Bigot is a strong word and even if it applies to the person who sent the email to David Mack it can also be applied to David Mack himself. I think if the word upsets some people we should respect that and maybe change it to a word that is less strong. Just my opinion.

[Mazoue]

Without getting into the debate whether the use of the word bigot is appropriate or inappropriate in this case, I do have to say that just like Newton's third law of motion, David Mack's reaction was just as great as the readers reaction to his book if not greater. It isn't wrong to voice your opinion and I'm sure the reader didn't think their email would garnish such attention as Mr. Mack writing about it in a blog. Keep in mind, he could have just as well opted to write back to the reader without involving the world. I'm sure he thought his intentions were noble at the time but he himself quoted Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, which begs him to recognize the reader's point of view as part of that equation. Though I suppose, his reaction was fuelled by the fact that the reader simply stopped reading and deleted the e-book - is there any greater insult to an author?

And as a gay man, I am admittedly very disappointed in the readers point of view but ultimately the readers only states the truth: "Homosexuality is not universally accepted" but boy do I wish it was, I would have an easier time of it. Still, in my opinion, the reader is blind too simply because of his/her prejudice since this is a fictional universe where homosexuality is universally accepted and to not have any relationship under that definition is unrealistic within that universe. But the reader also has the right to do exactly what he or she did if he or she was so grievously offended by the content.

In the end, I feel there were "faux pas" by both side of the argument but that doesn't negate the fact that it has brought in more discussion about how we need to work to be more tolerant and accepting of differences - whatever they be opinions or beliefs.

Thank you for the article Flicky and thank you for editing Torinth.

[Christopher Halsey]

So in Star Trek we've seen abuse, fascism, genocide, racism, rape, terrorism, torture and war, all of which are apparently fine but two people of the same gender having consensual sex is where this reader draws the line?

So long as we know where that line is between perfectly fine and abhorrent. Right?

[Torinth]

I don't need to talk in private - this title was a poor word choice, and I'm not the only one who sees it as such.

The choice of words is perfectly acceptable, you may not agree and that's completely fine, however the writer, myself & Cehus, the member who submit the story, and the numerous source outlets all found the use of bigot (Cehus' definition of it.) perfectly acceptable in this circumstance.

However if the word is going to be considered offensive then by all means we'll remove it, however censoring someones opinion is not what we like to do.

[Caymen Greener]

The choice of words is perfectly acceptable, you may not agree and that's completely fine, however the writer, myself & Cehus, the member who submit the story, and the numerous source outlets all found the use of bigot (Cehus' definition of it.) perfectly acceptable in this circumstance.

However if the word is going to be considered offensive then by all means we'll remove it, however censoring someones opinion is not what we like to do.

Ok, I'll bite. Can we change it to "Bigot David Mack Responds to Bigot Fan E-mail"? That's perfectly acceptable and more accurate, by the very same definition.

[Sysil]

I think the keyword in the definition is 'unfairly', and I think Mack's dislike of the reader is reasonable. I can't say the same about the reader's dislike.

[Torinth]

Ok, I'll bite. Can we change it to "Bigot David Mack Responds to Bigot Fan E-mail"? That's perfectly acceptable and more accurate, by the very same definition.

I think that's being picky for the sake of being picky, the article has had 192 views and out of that only 2 have complained about the usage of the word bigot, I offered to change the title however if you're not going to come up with a mature response Caymen then I won't.

Also, if you have anymore concerns with the title then I must echo to send them via PM, as these comments are visible on the homepage and to anyone who visits the site.

[Caymen Greener]

I think the keyword in the definition is 'unfairly', and I think Mack's dislike of the reader is reasonable. I can't say the same about the reader's dislike.

To quote Mack:

Whenever someone asks, Why do we need to keep talking about embracing diversity in stories, and seeking out diversity in the authors and creators and portrayers of speculative fiction?, I will say it’s because too many authors and artists and filmmakers still get letters like this one. We need to work toward a better future in which no one would even *think* of writing an e-mail like this.

He is making the assertion that society needs to get to a point where someone doesn't share their religious opinions or openly communicate in a free manner. I think that's quite unfair of him to assume that everyone be comfortable with that. It is not unfair for them to make the statements they did (aside from perhaps their Vulcan assumption) - is it unreasonable? Yes, I would agree. But not unfair. They shared their concern and their disdain for his creation. Nothing unfair about that.

Again, despite my beliefs, I think the reader did behave silly. But I just don't think anyone need to attack them for their beliefs and sharing their concerns. Further, I don't like labeling them as something with such a negative connotation when it can be universally applied by definition to a very broad selection of people on this planet (on both sides of many debates like this, mind you).

[Sysil]

I disagree with your assessment of Mack's intentions, but since this is heading towards a religious belief discussion I won't debate you on that because I think this is the wrong forum for it.