The danger of linking to someone else’s post as a short-cut way of explaining what you think about a particular issue is that you may wind up having all of their subsidiary opinions attributed to you as well. When I said I basically agreed with this post by John Scalzi, I meant that I agree that there’s no evidence (as far as I’m aware) that anything on the now-endlessly-discussed 2014 Hugo Awards ballot is there because of “ballot-rigging.” But it appears some people think I was also signing on to the entirety of John Scalzi’s approach to deciding what to vote for in the Hugos. Short answer: No, I’m not.
To be clear, I think John’s approach is fine for him. I also think it’s fine to ignore and not read a work when you have adequate reason to believe it will just make you unhappy. For that matter, I think it’s fine to ignore and not read something because the author has called for harm to you or to people you care about. Art and politics can’t ever be completely separated. As a general rule of thumb, when we think our approach to something is politics-free, that generally means the politics are so normative as to be invisible.
I’ve said before that I value some work by some very right-wing artists, for instance Ezra Pound. I’ve pointed to Chip Delany’s point (in his introduction to Heinlein’s Glory Road) about the royalist Balzac being Marx’s favorite novelist. None of this means that I think everybody’s obliged to give some kind of Olympian “fair shake” to anyone’s art just because it’s art. The world is full of art. It’s not that special, and making it doesn’t get any artist off the hook for being a terrible human being. If you’re a terrible human being, lots of people are not going to want to pay attention to your art even if it’s the best thing since Dante on toast. I can’t imagine that any of this is actually news to anybody.