Some inside baseball on this situation. His daughter turned 26 this year, which meant that she couldn't remain on her parents health care. To resolve this, John formed a new corporation to handle his business interests outside of his writing contracts and hired his wife and daughter as the company's only employees. There's a series of posts about his wife retiring to run this company and his daughter joining as marketing director. Since the IRS takes a very dim view of high net worth individuals forming shell companies just to employ relatives, he has to be very performative about what this company, and his family members, will be doing.
Scalzi is circling back to the Old Man's War series. The 7th book lands in September according to Tor. The sixth book dropped in 2016. He's going to need a strong product and an even stronger marketing campaign to rebuild interest in the series. As for the IRS, he's on his own.
I doubt that he's being intentionally dishonest here, but it is a minefield, and there have been questionable decisions in the past. In 2023, his foundation donated $1,000 to a charity that had not filed a form 990 since 2021. Granted there is a chance he didn't know they hadn't filed for the donation year based on difference in fiscal year ends and delays in posting 990 forms.
The Internet never forgets what? If it's that John Scalzi satirically lambasted a politician for making maybe the most dumbass remark ever, then I hope the Internet never does forget. If the Internet actually believes Scalzi is a rapist for having written what's glaringly satire, then the Internet is a fucking moron.
“I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have.” – John Scalzi, 25 October 2012
Yeah, that's plainly satire. Scalzi was not personally admitting to rape, and only a numskull would think he was. He was taking a shot at Todd Akin, the Missouri Republican lawmaker who said abortion is unnecessary because women's bodies can "shut that whole thing down" (meaning pregnancy) in cases of "legitimate rape" (suggesting that some rapes really aren't rape).
Seriously, read the piece. It's very obvious from the points Scalzi makes that he's taking on the persona of a rapist to "thank" Republican politicians for giving rapists even more control over women's lives than they took directly when they raped those women. You're intelligent enough to see that, right?
Unless your point is -- what? -- being pro-choice because rape is a fact of the world women face is an "extreme political take"?
You requested an example of Scalzi using an extreme political take.
You don't think writing about being a rapist in order to victimize women who cannot get an abortion, counts? Abortion is a sensitive political topic and his "satire" was an extreme political take to any reasonable person.
If you disagree, please define what an extreme political take is in your view.
You don’t understand satire. I imagined that might be the case when you called this “edgy humor.” It’s not meant to be humorous. “Satiric” doesn’t mean “funny.” Some satire, like The Onion, is funny. Some isn’t. Some is scathing, as is the case here.
Scalzi declares what he wrote to be satire at the top of the comment section on the page you linked. Though it robs his writing of subtlety, doubtless he felt he had to make such a disclaimer for the sake of folks like you who didn’t “get” it.
Scalzi’s very point in writing the piece was to draw attention to two facts: (1) women are raped and that results in unwanted pregnancies; (2) denying these women the right to an abortion victimizes them a second time. He’s not arguing FOR this victimization; he’s arguing AGAINST it. That’s why the “letter” is addressed to “certain conservative politicians”: in Scalzi’s eyes, those politicians, such as Akin, were standing on the side of rapists. The contents of the piece make plain Scalzi’s contempt for those politicians. The over-the-top “I enjoy controlling women” rhetoric of the piece is a direct attack on those politicians who assert control over women’s choices. Scalzi is telling them that their ethics are no better than the ethics of a rapist.
Whether you agree with that particular point or not, I doubt you believe it’s “extreme.” Only Scalzi’s METHOD for making the point is extreme. And the method is supposed to be extreme: shocking readers by seeming to propose or endorse the unthinkable is one of the satirist’s sharpest techniques. He’s not actually proposing or endorsing any such thing; he’s making readers think about the true dimensions of what he’s criticizing, i.e. “if you force raped women to give birth to their rapists’ babies, you’re doing essentially the same thing to them the rapists did.”
If you’re still confused, look up and read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” When you’re done reading, ask yourself, “Is Swift actually, sincerely arguing that impoverished Irish families ought to give up their children to be literally eaten by their rich English landlords? Or is he making some deeper point, and seeming to endorse cannibalism is just his method for making that point?”
Now, I’ve done my best here to educate you. However, if you go on insisting (or pretending) Scalzi is either a rapist or on the side of rapists or arguing for women’s victimization, I’ll have no choice but to conclude either you’re unteachable, you can’t admit when you’re wrong, or you’re debating in bad faith.
“abortion” outside of its singular use as the worst sin and worst s4tanic ritual possible is by rapists such as yourself, scalzi and other “male feminists” to remove the evidence.
there is no “satire,” it’s possibly the first time he’s ever been honest and he’s honest for both of you.
your curses are Consummately Returned back to whence they came with A St Michael Prayer and A St Benedict Prayer.
Some inside baseball on this situation. His daughter turned 26 this year, which meant that she couldn't remain on her parents health care. To resolve this, John formed a new corporation to handle his business interests outside of his writing contracts and hired his wife and daughter as the company's only employees. There's a series of posts about his wife retiring to run this company and his daughter joining as marketing director. Since the IRS takes a very dim view of high net worth individuals forming shell companies just to employ relatives, he has to be very performative about what this company, and his family members, will be doing.
Scalzi is circling back to the Old Man's War series. The 7th book lands in September according to Tor. The sixth book dropped in 2016. He's going to need a strong product and an even stronger marketing campaign to rebuild interest in the series. As for the IRS, he's on his own.
Scalzi aiming to join the big leagues with the likes of Willie Nelson, Wesley Snipes, and Al Capone.
I doubt that he's being intentionally dishonest here, but it is a minefield, and there have been questionable decisions in the past. In 2023, his foundation donated $1,000 to a charity that had not filed a form 990 since 2021. Granted there is a chance he didn't know they hadn't filed for the donation year based on difference in fiscal year ends and delays in posting 990 forms.
Brandon, if you're reading this, know that this is the future you choose.
He knows, and he's counting on public self-flagellation to continue to manipulate conservative readers to take pity on him.
Brandon, if you're reading this, get your health under control. You're fat. Stop eating for pleasure before it kills you.
Pity is always a horrible strategy. Be it in business, in politics, and in life.
It's effectively saying you're a non-factor by way of victimhood.
“…his extreme political takes.” Such as? This piece is slinging some mud but light on details.
“No, I have not raped or sexually assaulted anyone. No, I have not admitted to raping or sexually assaulting anyone.” – John Scalzi, 27 December, 2014
“I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women
without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually.” – John Scalzi, 25 October 2012
Pretty edgy humor.
The Internet never forgets.
The Internet never forgets what? If it's that John Scalzi satirically lambasted a politician for making maybe the most dumbass remark ever, then I hope the Internet never does forget. If the Internet actually believes Scalzi is a rapist for having written what's glaringly satire, then the Internet is a fucking moron.
The Internet is right and Scalzi holds water for pedophiles.
Shut up already
Okay Gamma male
“I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have.” – John Scalzi, 25 October 2012
https://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/25/a-fan-letter-to-certain-conservative-politicians/
Yeah, that's plainly satire. Scalzi was not personally admitting to rape, and only a numskull would think he was. He was taking a shot at Todd Akin, the Missouri Republican lawmaker who said abortion is unnecessary because women's bodies can "shut that whole thing down" (meaning pregnancy) in cases of "legitimate rape" (suggesting that some rapes really aren't rape).
Seriously, read the piece. It's very obvious from the points Scalzi makes that he's taking on the persona of a rapist to "thank" Republican politicians for giving rapists even more control over women's lives than they took directly when they raped those women. You're intelligent enough to see that, right?
Unless your point is -- what? -- being pro-choice because rape is a fact of the world women face is an "extreme political take"?
You requested an example of Scalzi using an extreme political take.
You don't think writing about being a rapist in order to victimize women who cannot get an abortion, counts? Abortion is a sensitive political topic and his "satire" was an extreme political take to any reasonable person.
If you disagree, please define what an extreme political take is in your view.
You don’t understand satire. I imagined that might be the case when you called this “edgy humor.” It’s not meant to be humorous. “Satiric” doesn’t mean “funny.” Some satire, like The Onion, is funny. Some isn’t. Some is scathing, as is the case here.
Scalzi declares what he wrote to be satire at the top of the comment section on the page you linked. Though it robs his writing of subtlety, doubtless he felt he had to make such a disclaimer for the sake of folks like you who didn’t “get” it.
Scalzi’s very point in writing the piece was to draw attention to two facts: (1) women are raped and that results in unwanted pregnancies; (2) denying these women the right to an abortion victimizes them a second time. He’s not arguing FOR this victimization; he’s arguing AGAINST it. That’s why the “letter” is addressed to “certain conservative politicians”: in Scalzi’s eyes, those politicians, such as Akin, were standing on the side of rapists. The contents of the piece make plain Scalzi’s contempt for those politicians. The over-the-top “I enjoy controlling women” rhetoric of the piece is a direct attack on those politicians who assert control over women’s choices. Scalzi is telling them that their ethics are no better than the ethics of a rapist.
Whether you agree with that particular point or not, I doubt you believe it’s “extreme.” Only Scalzi’s METHOD for making the point is extreme. And the method is supposed to be extreme: shocking readers by seeming to propose or endorse the unthinkable is one of the satirist’s sharpest techniques. He’s not actually proposing or endorsing any such thing; he’s making readers think about the true dimensions of what he’s criticizing, i.e. “if you force raped women to give birth to their rapists’ babies, you’re doing essentially the same thing to them the rapists did.”
If you’re still confused, look up and read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” When you’re done reading, ask yourself, “Is Swift actually, sincerely arguing that impoverished Irish families ought to give up their children to be literally eaten by their rich English landlords? Or is he making some deeper point, and seeming to endorse cannibalism is just his method for making that point?”
Now, I’ve done my best here to educate you. However, if you go on insisting (or pretending) Scalzi is either a rapist or on the side of rapists or arguing for women’s victimization, I’ll have no choice but to conclude either you’re unteachable, you can’t admit when you’re wrong, or you’re debating in bad faith.
Gamma confirmed. Let's ban this guy.
“abortion” outside of its singular use as the worst sin and worst s4tanic ritual possible is by rapists such as yourself, scalzi and other “male feminists” to remove the evidence.
there is no “satire,” it’s possibly the first time he’s ever been honest and he’s honest for both of you.
your curses are Consummately Returned back to whence they came with A St Michael Prayer and A St Benedict Prayer.
I would assume his lifelong support of s1ns That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance among every other mortal sin and evil possible.
not to mention any sexual sin that “male feminists” like yourself commit on the daily.
your curses are Consummately Returned back to whence they came with A St Michael Prayer and A St Benedict Prayer.