It’s been gorgeous spring weather here by the Great Salt Lake. I did the APFT yesterday, then went home and played catch and frisbee with my daughter, while also doing some outside chores on my Dad’s house. Plenty of sunshine and fresh air. Perfect for clearing a guy’s head.
I’m getting ready for an Army deployment to the Middle East, so my ability to keep up with this whole “conversation” — about Sad Puppies 3 — is soon going to diminish. So I don’t think I will spend much time this week (or even for the rest of this month) talking about the affair. Most of what needs to be said from my end, has been said. People either love Sad Puppies 3, or hate Sad Puppies 3, or are somewhere in between. Or, often, they simply don’t know what’s going on and don’t care. Which is 99% of the human race at this point. And that’s probably for the best. Few things are as boring to non-nerds, as a cage match nerd fight.
But . . .
I’ve been asked by several people if I am going to respond to commentary in Salon, Slate, or The Atlantic. I’ve been starting and stopping several such responses, ever since last weekend, and I keep pushing the PAUSE button because — in my opinion — Salon and other progressive tabloid sites like it, are merely symptoms of a deeper issue. I could spend the next week going point-for-point with Arthur Chu or Kameron Hurley, and I am sure none of us would be budged from our positions even an inch. It would not be a conversation. It would be a spectator sport, for the crowds. Chu in one corner, me in the other. That’s how these social media and tabloid journalism fights are set up to begin with. Pick a target, hit the target, see if the target fights back, rake in the clicks and the tweets and the likes and the ad revenue.
No, I’d rather talk about the shared assumptions which create these kinds of responses (to something like Sad Puppies 3) in the first place. Because the invocation of Chu, and the commentary of Hurley — tying the insider argument in SF/F about diversity, to the larger cultural argument about same — makes me want to broaden the scope of my response to the point I am not even talking about SF/F at all.
Western civilization is experiencing a post-Enlightenment crisis.
For hundreds of years we fought the chains of doctrinaire thinking — as told to us by superstition, folklore, and the churches. In the 20th century the trappings of the churches were almost entirely cast off, and for a few decades we (the West) thought we’d finally done it. We’d liberated our collective intellect from the machinery of dispensed truth. All souls would be free to find their own truths and their own meanings, and none could gainsay another man’s or woman’s path of self-discovery. The 21st century was going to be a wonderland of abundance economics, and the melting away of nationalism, tribalism, territorialism, and all the rotten isms of history. A global village, joined by the techno-wizardry of the internet, would rise.
When the first plane hit the first tower on September 11, 2001, the bubble popped.
History wasn’t done with us yet.
I remember in the wake of 9/11 there seemed to be two camps forming. The first camp devoted itself almost entirely to the question: What did we do to deserve this, and how can we say we’re sorry? The second camp asked: How can we bring the perpetrators to justice, and what can be done to stop them in the future?
The first camp focused on self-criticism, and the many post-Enlightenment narratives of inner blame.
The second camp focused on strategy and tactics, to combat the people who sponsored the men who flew the planes, and also to combat the ideology which drove those men to commit murder-suicide.
Now, almost two decades after the most famous international terrorist attack in history, its the children of the first camp who seem to be dominating our societal conversation. Because inner blame is practically the only thing that gets talked about these days. If someone else hurts, it’s because we either did it to them, or we didn’t do enough to stop the hurt, or we are merely hurtful as a factual matter of existing. Ergo, we are born hurtful, and anyone who denies it is merely perpetuating societal and systemic prejudices and wrong.
If you don’t own your hurting hurtfulness — merely because you live and breath and share space with others — you are guilty of any number of rancid ists and isms. You must be shown the error of your ways. You must be made to rip your shirt and beat your breast, about the terribleness of your life, and how you will do better. For all definitions of “better” which include running around demanding everyone else acknowledge his hurtfulness — even if he’s never lifted a finger to swat a fly. Simply being in the universe is hurtful. It’s hurtful to the environment. It’s hurtful to women. It’s hurtful to non-caucasians. It’s hurtful to non-heterosexuals. And so on, and so forth. Either you rip your shirt and beat your breast, and go on the attack against the other “hurters” in your circle, or you are double-plus guilty of being a hurter yourself.
The irony of this whole idea is that it’s simply a postmodernist secular reinvention of the concept of original sin.
Not coincidentally, we’ve seen postmodernist secular reinventions of hair shirts, self-flagellation, and the Spanish Inquisition. Determining guilt or innocence — at trial, in the courts of social media — does not depend on empirical evidence as much as it depends on acknowledging and following the forms and teachings of the doctrine. How well can you stand in the public square and engage in a Mao-style renunciation of yourself? Are you willing to call out and renounce others? Do you “own” your “privilege” with the appropriate amount of visible self-guilt, and are you willing to publicly point a finger at others?
Will you swear fealty to the Party?
Are you loyal to the Cause?
Last week, after the announcement of the Hugo awards final ballot, Sad Puppies 3 (and all involved with it) were declared guilty of going off the script. Questions of tradition and procedural propriety aside, the biggest sin of Sad Puppies 3 was that Larry Correia and I had both stated publicly that we believe in ideological diversity, rather than skin-deep diversity. We had questioned — Openly! Where the commissars could read it! — the doctrine of affirmative action. That a book’s worth or a story’s worth was a matter of pure audience enjoyment, versus merely a determination of the author’s demographics; or the demographics of the main characters.
For this, the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance unleashed their Inquisition. Within 24 hours both Larry and myself had had our names spread across a dozen different progressive tabloid and media sites. The content of the accusation was clownishly in error. It took only a few seconds to unearth the falsehoods, and demonstrate them to the world. Entertainment Weekly had to backtrack and erect several legalistic apologia, to avoid the threat of libel. But the facts were immaterial because the narrative is what mattered most. And the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance understand this fully. Anyone who goes off-script has to be squashed like a bug. Larry and I were deemed low-hanging fruit, so the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance speed-dialed their allies in the progressive media establishment, spoon-fed those allies a sloppy, almost embarrassingly asinine story, then sat back to watch as the progressive media trotted off obediently to do their work.
Neither Larry nor myself could be allowed to stray off the reservation.
Sarah Hoyt — born in Portugal, naturalized to the U.S. — has seen this kind of thing before. It’s the old Stalinist-Marxist mentality which Sarah got to see up close and personal. It’s the mentality my former boss (who was a refugee from Soviet-era Poland) knew all too well, too. Frankly, any time I talk about the 21st century American fascination with political correctness, refugees from the Marxist countries recognize it instantly: the collective effort to control and dictate what is and is not permissible to say, or to think, or to feel, including who you can and cannot associate with; lest you be hauled before the commissars to be tried for guilt-by-association.
Fear is their weapon.
Don’t get caught with the wrong crowd. Don’t be seen talking to the wrong people. Don’t pass the wrong guys so much as a crumb of your sympathy or attention, or you’re done. Your association is proof of your crimes. Whether or not you committed any crimes is beside the point. You were caught with the criminals, therefore you must also be a criminal. Protestations to the contrary, are merely further proof of your guilt. You were seen walking on the same sidewalk in the same direction. Guilty, until proven . . . guilty.
The kafkatrap is sprung.
This is how nominally good motivations — such as opposition to racial prejudice, or the desire to see historically disenfranchised persons achieve equal status and equal rights — become perverted. Because the original objectives of the movement(s) fall to the side, as people realize that the movement(s) themselves make perfect masks for what might be best described as benevolent totalitarianism: the commissars and “deciders” will choose for you which thoughts you are allowed to think, which words you are allowed to speak, and which people you are allowed to associate with. For your own good.
Because going off-script is dangerous.
Remember, the doctrine of the self-blamers. They believe everyone is born to hurt. You hurt people even when you are not hurting anyone. Your very existence hurts someone somewhere — at least if you are classified (according to the heirarchy of hurters) as being a prime source of psychic wounding.
So, either you get on-script, rip your shirt, beat your chest, and go on the attack against others, or the commissars will turn you into a target.
Last week Larry Correia and I were caught being fatally off-script.
The commissars (always self-designated) and their media enablers, reacted with knee-jerk efficiency.
Because the objective was to stir up still more flaming rage nozzles of tolerance. To see that the wrong-doers are punished and chastised and brought low before the “community” of benevolent tyranny. To wreck the wrong-doers in the public eye. Facts and logic are irrelevant. It’s the bloody script! We must stick to the script! The narrative! The hurters must be shown their born nature, then made to confess, and converted to the Cause!
To which Larry and I both said, “Fuck that, and fuck you.”
Now, the funny part is, the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance haven’t figured out yet that trying to enforce an artificial and restrictive form of invented morality upon people with free minds (and free pocketbooks) is like herding cats. If not waving a red cape in front of a herd of bulls.
Once the smear campaign was revealed, the conservative counter-media weighed in. The American Spectator, The Federalist, The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, and The National Review. For a few days, Larry and I both got to become minor folk heroes. Here was a textbook case of gullible, thud-footed, predictably programmed progressive media, trying to crush the little conservative guys — with benevolent hate and party-ginned lies.
In the minds of the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance, they’d won.
The evil-doers had been exposed, and all correct-thinking people would turn their backs, and Larry and I would be ruined forever.
See, thing is, this was like Chick-Fil-A. Remember how that went down? The flaming rage nozzles of tolerance said Chick-Fil-A (the entirety of the corporation) was off-script. The goombah progressive media clown car was called in, and boycotts were announced — to punish Chick-Fil-A for being off-script.
What did free people do?
They gave Chick-Fil-A its greatest week in collective company history.
Business out the wazoo. Cash pouring in, from sales, hand-over-fist.
Because this is how free people give the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance — the commissars — a giant middle finger.
So, too, are free people reacting against the attack on Sad Puppies 3. I think Larry and I came out way ahead on that one, even though it was an exhausting week filled with thousands of messages and lots of activity on social media; to defend our case and refute the slander.
But this is just a skirmish, as Chick-Fil-A was too a skirmish. The flaming rage nozzles of tolerance haven’t gone away. They are still with us, and they are multiplying. They are everywhere in our institutions, especially our schools and universities, and they are working to gain control of the ultimate levers of power: the law. Once the law is in the hands of the commissars, free people everywhere — with free minds — will be at risk. And no, just because you were a good and obedient subject during the run-up to the purges, doesn’t mean you will be spared. If the ejection and execution of Trotsky (in the 20th century) taught us anything, it’s that the self-flensing (among the commisars) is almost more cut-throat, than when they are attacking objectors.
I consider it the duty of Science Fiction and Fantasy fans, authors, and editors, to be anti-authoritarian. Even to include (or especially to include?) benevolent authoritarianism. The cuddly pink fluffy cudgel of political correctness must be opposed by men and women with courage, and the conviction of their free-minded principles. Now is the time for this field — more than any other genre in the literary arts — to demonstrate that it is dangerous. To the commissars. To the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance. To the people who believe the ends justify the means.
“Don’t pass the wrong guys so much as a crumb of your sympathy or attention, or you’re done.”
So true. In the past few weeks, SJWs have been devouring each other, declaring someone as “problematic” because they dared to question the ideology or to treat the opposition like human beings. Frank Wu’s wife, Brianna Wu, was recently attacked by her supposed “allies” because she met an anti-SJW to discuss business in person. Within hours, most of the people that kissed her ass and hailed her as a beacon of feminism and social justice were calling her a “fake feminist” and “false woman” (Brianna is allegedly a trans person). All this vitriol, merely because she dared to even SPEAK to the enemy as a human being? Stalin would have been proud.
They’re Judases-in-waiting, except in lieu of 30 pieces of silver, they do it to earn progressive brownie points.
From Sarah Hoyt: “Mary Kowal might be a good example of a liberal in action.”
Mary Kowal is a “liberal” but no liberal. She hides behind a mask of even-handedness while do exactly what we are falsely accused of doing. She is buying votes in broad daylight, even being subsidized to do so, and no one is calling her out on it because “civility”?
Explain to me how what Mary is doing is in anyway different from handing out cartons of cigarettes to transients to get them into the polls on election day? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I actually said that. You don’t have to run to another blog if you disagree, you could have called me out there. Its not like I’m going to take offense at someone disagreeing. Heck, you might prove to me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Won’t be the first time someone corrected me.
On a related note, Vox just offered to debate the issues with Martin.
“Not coincidentally, we’ve seen postmodernist secular reinventions of hair shirts, self-flagellation, and the Spanish Inquisition.”
But I wasn’t expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
“Fear is their weapon.”
I thought it was surprise. Suprise and fear–their two weapons are surprise and fear and a ruthless fanatical–oh, nevermind.
But I will let a Hugo winner from the days when “Hugo Award winning novel” meant something have the final word on the efficacy of fear as a weapon:
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
“Within hours, most of the people that kissed her ass and hailed her as a beacon of feminism and social justice were calling her a “fake feminist” and “false woman””
Too bad they’re all completely ignorant of history, or else assume that they’re somehow “special”.
The fates of Robespierre, Trotsky, and Ernst Röhm are instructive.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who can remember the past are condemned to repeatedly shouting “BOHICA!”
Thanks for this, Brad. It’s an eloquent distillation of the situation. And I couldn’t agree more with you, re: not wasting time trying to convert the committed SJW tribe. The trick is to keep the dialogue going, with civility and respect, reaching out to those who are willing to rethink their entrenched positions while also being willing to examine our own responses honestly. As has been rightly pointed out, this isn’t a black and white issue of ‘them bad, us good’ because there are people who are nominally on ‘this side’ of the debate who have used intemperate and troubling language, or who fixate on certain issues and seem unwilling to even entertain the notion that just because an SJW said it, doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong. Those people do not and never will speak for me. Reject the lies and the liars, the smear merchants and those who would seek to control us through bullying and hypocrisy and terror tactics. Keep our hearts and minds open to our own potential blind spots, even as we ask the other side to do the same.
Good luck with your upcoming deployment – and in all your endeavours, continue to fight the good fight.
Hey, good luck on your upcoming deployment, be safe. This was a well written piece, keep up the good work.
“Those who can remember the past are condemned to repeatedly shouting “BOHICA!””
Exactly: Bend Over, Here It Comes Again!
I think that we might be on the cusp of a preference cascade, wherein more and more plain and quiet moderates may be thinking “Not one step farther with this assholery.” Look at the people who donated twenty or thirty dollars to Memories Pizza – another cultural dissenter, caught in the Flaming Rage Nozzles of Tolerance. (Hey, can we make that into an acronym too? FRNT – it does have a ring to it, does it not?
“The cuddly pink fluffy cudgel of political correctness” This just made me laugh out loud, and then shudder…
“Flaming rage nozzles of tolerance.”
Well… George Martin did say he didn’t care for the term SJW. Also, I sort of like the long version… flaming rage nozzles of tolerance…
And yeah… people don’t like bullies. The bullies step forward and start their bullying and people who have no particularly investment in whatever it’s about tend to step forward to oppose the bullies, even if they have to go a little bit out of their way to do it. Say take… Brianna Wu. That she’s being attacked by the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance get’s my contrary gene active. Sure, she seems to support the mob currently biting her butt, but it also makes her the most vulnerable. What fun is it to attack someone like Larry when you can aim for someone dependent upon her standing in your community? There’s a *reason* that Glee, the most gay friendly, produced and directed by gay persons show on television, had to apologize to LGBT’s numerous times, after all. It’s about how many tearful public confessions you can elicit and Glee was an easy target for the treatment.
Brianna gets no sympathy from me; if you create anger, and profit from anger, then it’s your own fault if you’re burned by the mob you helped whip up. .
@Angus I seem to be missing your point. I was quoting my own post over there. Possible a case of great minds thinking alike?
Good luck on deployment, Brad. Have a safe one if possible.
If you win a Hugo in the near future, I hope this is included in your victory speech.
I may well need to share this with a number of folks who do not understand the right of center mindset.
Orgell, my point was only that I feel a *nudge* in the direction of support. And I do feel a bit sorry sometimes for people who have made themselves dependent emotionally on that community because they *always* eat their own. Always.
I want to say… come to the Dark Side… we have cookies.
Because sometimes the social group a person falls into is entirely by accident, even when they might seem to take some element of leadership, and since flaming rage nozzles of tolerance spend a great deal of effort (as any shame culture does) of enforcing the idea that the worst fate is to be thrown out into the outer darkness where *everyone hates you*, I don’t think that the average member has any notion at all that they’re anything other than trapped forever.
It’s really classic control mechanisms used by cults, among others. The Out Group is so vilified that anyone in the In Group can be controlled through fear of banishment.
“The cuddly pink fluffy cudgel of political correctness must be opposed ”
Truer words were never spoken. Oppression “for your own good” is still oppression. I’m reminded of a line from “A Clockwork Orange,” spoken by the prison priest: “Goodness comes from within. Goodness is chosen. When a man ceases to choose, he ceases to be a man.”
Going over there again and chasing the posts down I see what you mean. I was just referring to the stuff in quotes “Mary Kowal might be a good example of a liberal in action.” Not understanding what you were doing, I spoke, thinking we had a disagreement. Bad on my part.
My misunderstanding. Chalk it up to being on line with a flaming migraine.
I find it astounding that someone can be attacked for putting together a list of books that are well written and based solely on quality! Evidently, some SF shouldn’t be bought or read, let alone be nominated for a Hugo, because the author or publisher has been labeled a “Bad” person. .And I loved your response on George Martin’s blog. Good luck on your deployment.
Julie, all I can say is that you’re a better person than I am – I have little compassion for someone who vilifies my very existence, and see any difficulties they find themselves in as strictly karmic in nature.
Just noting for your list that postmodern secularism has also reinvented the abuse of “Indulgences”.
Paying money to be “Carbon Neutral” while still flying 200,000+ miles in a year “To save the planet from Global Warming” – aka Al Gore, etc.
“It isn’t hypocrisy because I’ve paid for carbon offsets!” (paraphrase of any number of people doing exactly this.)
Also: Postmodern Secularism has an amusing acronym that’s probably too triggering to be used.
It will no doubt come as no surprise to you that the similarity between the SJW version of “privilege” and the doctrine of original sin has been noted before. There’s rather more disturbing parallels, though. Replace “privileged” with “subhuman” and their rants sound rather similar to Nazi rants. Leave “privileged” and replace “cishet white male” with “Jew”, and their rants sound even MORE similar to Nazi rants. These people are that horrible. I’m sorry, Mike Godwin, but they truly are. They’re only better by virtue of their relative incompetence.
You mentioned chickfila and it made me think of the more recent example of Memories Pizza. Liberals seem to be like a quick hot burn and fizzle while conservatives are the slow helpful glow that brings the needed support when it vounts, not just hash tag hype
There is a simple remedy to Kowal’s buying votes: have Puppy supporters apply for them, If she’s handing out memberships, paid for, then take all we can, , ,
Instapundit linked this just now. https://medium.com/@aristoNYC/social-justice-bullies-the-authoritarianism-of-millennial-social-justice-6bdb5ad3c9d3 The guy’s not saying anything that Sarah Hoyt hasn’t said. The author is probably someone I’d say “we have cookies” to. He seems well aware that he’s going to be attacked for saying what he said, which is impressive that he’s saying it anyway. Humans are social animals. The worst hurts are the ones that use that truth as the basis of In Group punishment.
Keith, if you can’t afford it, she’s said you’re welcome to enter.
I think the reason intersectional gender feminism has become all the rage is because it gathers all the gripe and hokum, all the racist and sexual bigotry and supremacy into one camp where everyone can let fly. From the safety of a false inheritance of America’s great 20th century anti-oppression battles that have almost entirely been won, these people assert they have not been won at all and use that as a Trojan Horse to camouflage what is nothing more than sheer hatred. Today on Twitter the co-host of the Hugos is asking us to read The New Jim Crow. I have. Apparently not only did Ronald Reagan make drug laws just to mess over black foiks, he did it with “glee.” There is a sure sign of a journalist.
The concept of “justice” is one that includes every human being. When it mysteriously never includes whites, men and heterosexuals, or Christians and the West, just use Occam’s Razor. That is not justice, that is a diversity version of the KKK.
Core SFF is a microcosm of a text book example of how hate speech is mainstreamed into the public arena as thing that is not only right and noble, but necessary. All such movements contain what are sometimes called “Gods/Devils” scenarios, or in other words, demonization theories. In our case those would include “white privilege” and “rape culture.” Those are specifically tailored to ignore an actual individual who does a thing and instead smear an entire group.
“All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” – Southern Poverty Law Center
It is important to remember this: you can tell as much about intersectionalists by who they conspicuously leave alone as you can by who they attack. For example, despite their heightened interest in historic colonialism, intersectionalists have marked the houses of Aztec, Incan, Ottoman, Arabic and Mughal colonialism with a special sign so the angel of intersectionalism will turn a blind eye to them. That pattern is repeated endlessly within intersectional dialogues, or rather, lack of dialogues.
Within intersectionalism, no cultural expression in this entire world is required to pie-chart and diversify itself that is not white, male, heterosexual or Western. No sport, no movie industry, no literary movement, no profession, no pop music – nothing.
The problem there is this is a thing which has no moral compass. It is a dangerous philosophy because once a person attributes negative aspects to one race a Pandora’s Box of attributes based on skin color is released and that mythical plague on mankind itself knows no skin color and so will have no regard for the color of it’s victims. That Angel of Death will go wherever it wants to go, and it certainly has.
SJWs use unprincipled identity to guide them. That is the complete opposite of how law and fair play work. SJWs are obsessed with the idea straight white men are immoral in the same way some folks are obsessed with Jews and black folks. The mistake is in believing black folks themselves – or anybody – won’t act like that. Anybody can and will. Don’t be fooled by these power/punching up disguises; they are precisely meant to fool you.
“The cuddly pink fluffy cudgel of political correctness must be opposed ” sounds a lot like Delores Umbridge who embodies any number of power hungry Bureaucrats, and was modeled after a real-life teacher JK Rowling had encountered.
Arthur Chu. Again. He leads off his attack on Sad Puppies by focusing on Vox, who WASN’T ON THE SAD PUPPIES BALLOT. It gets worse from there.
@Angus Hey, if we can’t have online fuss over a bit of honest confusion, what CAN we have a fuss over?
The dangerous thing about the concept of “Hate Speech” is that its impossible to define. Or rather, every one has their own definition and so when someone is attacked for “Hate Speech” its impossible to know how serious the charge is. Did they call someone a string of racial epitaphs or did they just say something the “victim” didn’t like? Who knows.
I mean, a few days ago on Twitter, K Tempest Bradford called Brad’s post about his family “hate speech” without having read it.
You can count one more puppy entering the fray, I just dropped my $40. I’ve been lurking for a while now, here and at the other blogs, and two things caused be to finally dig out the Mastercard. Someone mentioned Have Spacesuit Will Travel being their first taste, and I remembered, 9 or 10 years old, discovering the universe in that book. The second was GRRM waddling in and… you know.
Thanks Brad for your courage and hard work, and for (along with Larry, Sarah, and everyone else) reminding me that Sci- Fi is MY culture and a culture worth fighting for.
Been trying to comment on the Chu thread for nearly an hour, comments won’t open up. Are they locked or does Daily Beast just suck pondwater?
I mean, a few days ago on Twitter, K Tempest Bradford called Brad’s post about his family “hate speech” without having read it.
Well… fair’s fair, after all. No one ever reads her stuff, either. 😉
Do I own my privilege? You’re damn Skippy I do. Not being a fucking idiot is bloody GLORIOUS! Everyone should try it.
I’m getting ready for an Army deployment to the Middle East
Thank you for your service, sir!
“Well… fair’s fair, after all. No one ever reads her stuff, either. ;)”
Entered into the list of things on the internet that make me thankful I wasn’t drinking anything.
Richard McEnroe: Did you register?
In the old carnivals they used to have freak shows where you went in and saw the ape-boy or the bearded lady. The thing is, those people knew what they were doing there.
These blogs use Bradford and Chu like that, but they don’t tell them they’re using them as a freak show. There’s no “Come see Rondo the Gorilla Boy. See the transformation. Live!!!”
So they put these autistic retards on display. They are literally incapable of editing their racing crazy thoughts. They give them 25 bucks and say “Well done.” Whatever filters of shame or embarrassment normal people have to not blurt out crazy shit, these people don’t have. They have no sense of self-awareness or social norms of behavior.
It’s like taking a couple of homeless drunks off the street, having them chug down an entire litre of cheap vodka, feeding them an entire bar of Ex-Lax and then shoving them in a meeting of the local lady’s sewing circle and then locking the door so no one can get out.
I mean, read some of these Twitter feeds. They are ranting paranoid lunatics who think they live in a war zone. Every time some black person get publicly inconvenienced they put it up like white supremacists show black flash mobs in convenience stores. They’re obsessed with bizarre shit like a multicultural England when Jane Austen was writing books that’s now been hidden away by white racist historians. One of these lunatics even has an entire website called MedievalPoC. It shows paintings and statues. A lot of times you don’t even know what the hell you’re looking at.
If you wanted to make an underground comic satirizing these people you wouldn’t even have to write any dialogue. Just draw some pix of stick figures and use their own words.
Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
There is only room for hate in some people. It actually rather sad and pathetic.
I am reminded of a favorite quote of mine. No we’re not there yet, but when a small hateful faction of a$$hats attempt to silence their opponents with attacks on their families and businesses and reputations, are we really all that far off from that knock in the middle of the night?
They have attacked our friends, made threats in the expectation that we will cower in fear and remain silent. As for me, in the words of a modest one season TV show, I aim to misbehave.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? […] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Judging by who has managed to comment on Chu’s most “interesting” article he’s certainly not got the most sharp readership out there. If someone isn’t explaining how science fiction is stoooopid, they’re invoking the Koch brothers or the pending American War to Destroy Conservatives, which is, of course, inevitable.
No one has used the term ammosexual yet though… so they can probably aspire to greater heights without straining anything vital.
Brad, I can’t be accused to be Pro-SP in any way (let alone RP), but I certainly understand what you’re talking about in this post, and I can relate. If SF is something, is about a free, anti-authoritarian state of mind, and anything that goes against has to be regarded with suspicion, no matter the direction it comes from. Fascism and Stalinism were the same thing – a totalitarian system denying individual freedom. Said that, it was a sad thing to watch, this HugoGate – I’m a European, and as many Europeans we feel we are missing something, no matter if we attend (as I do) Eastercon, Worldcon etc. It is the tone that startled me, not the matter. Anyway…I will vote as I have always done, for stories I like. I can’t care less about who has written them. (And, incidentally, I’m longtime reader of Analog and Hard SF, and I’ve always enjoyed your stories: this is why I decided to write this one). Best of luck.
You’ve summed it up beautifully. The only change I would make would simply be to call them the Flaming Douche Nozzles of Tolerance.
And if you get the chance, you should check out the South Park episode “Death Camp of Tolerance.” They poke these idiots with a sharp stick. Although not as sharp as Brad’s stick was.
God be with you on your deployment, Brad.
Great post Brad. That says it all.
And Julie, I’m totally appropriating/manspreading “ammosexual.”
Hope you come back safe, Sir. Don’t forget to check six 🙂
I find this post the opposite of anti-authoritarianism.
“I remember in the wake of 9/11 there seemed to be two camps forming. The first camp devoted itself almost entirely to the question: What did we do to deserve this, and how can we say we’re sorry? The second camp asked: How can we bring the perpetrators to justice, and what can be done to stop them in the future?” Really, is that how you remember it?
“When the first plane hit the first tower on September 11, 2001, the bubble popped.”
You’re being awfully US-centric there. It was a big deal and a terrible crime, but I think you will hear from both your political allies (e.g. Israel’s right and most of their left too) and your political opponents (e.g. Noam Chomsky – the other side’s heretic, and if there’s one person I could make your side read, it’s him) that 9/11 was not the start in this way you suggest. And “how can we say we’re sorry”? Please, what a straw man. Not even in the depths of tumblr have I seen anyone say something like that.
In wars, both sides usually want themselves to be seen as an impersonal force of nature: “If you fly planes into our skyscrapers, this is just what happens, deal with it!”. “If you build your military bases in the holy land, this is just what happens, deal with it!”. The OTHER guy is responsible for his actions. You are not, because you’re a force of nature, it is not your action, what happens is just a consequence of their action.
So you see, even people sympathetic to Bin Laden (rare as they are in our part of the world) would never expect you to apologise to him. You don’t apologize to a force of nature. You just obey a force of nature.
But he wasn’t one, and you aren’t one either. Everyone has to answer for their own actions, entirely independently of what the others did to “bring it upon themselves”.
Good luck on your deployment, please come back safe and sound.
I’m certain, Brad, that you’re familiar with the old military dictum: “You know you’re over the target when you start catching flak.”
Congratulations on hitting the bull’s eye. 😉
Sounds like you and Larry got a treatment straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules of Radicals
Oops that should be Rules FOR Radicals. One problem for them lately is their usual smears have been backfiring. For instance a boycott of Chik fi A by people who would not get caught dead eating there? And I hear the donations for that Pizza place are approaching $1 Mil? Sounds like the best thing that could happen to a Conservative business is a Progessive boycott LOL
Good luck on the deployment, Chief. Im in Riyadh if you ever need backup.
My response to GRRM. Obviously this is my opinion and I do not speak for anyone else:
Mr. Martin, I think you talk with a lot of common sense and have strong arguments in many of the things you say.
I think that Mr. Correia and Mr. Torgerson are angry, and that anger sometimes makes them see things as worse than they are. In your “Where’s the Beef” post you made a good argument that the Hugos have not turned their back on entertaining, popular fiction, and I think you are right here and not Mr. Correia (although by spending so large a part of your article speaking about the distant past you could not do a closer analysis of the more recent years.) Anyway, except for one minor reservation I think you are right about what you say about that.
You are also right to say that for a group that calls for quality and popular entertainment the list that the Puppies have put together is deficient. I’m not saying it was necessarily bad, and I’m sure there are quite good things there (I’m talking about the Sad Puppies list here, not the Rabid ones), but as a whole the list seems something hastily put together without much analysis and overlooking many worthy candidates that completely meet the SP’s stated criteria.
I will also agree that the way this was done (with a list of exactly 5 items in many categories) makes it seem more like a slate than a recommendation list, and I understand people being upset over that. (I’ll also say however that it’s not the Puppies’ fault how deficient the voting system is, and that they were not expecting this sweep). Anyway, there’s been much politics and campaigning in the Hugos, but never to this extent. Your metaphor is good: they wanted a seat at the table but instead the kicked down the table and took all the seats. I hope that next year the Sad Puppies do things better and come up with a larger and better thought-out recommendation list, not with a slate.
The Sad Puppies are having fun and celebrating things they like, which is great, but there’s also an undercurrent of anger that makes them do things they might otherwise not do. And I believe they are right to be angry. I can only shake my head at how blind people are at bigotry and discrimination when it’s not directed at them and they have not been sensitized to it.
Tell me, if the SFWA is a professional organization, why were Mike Resnick and company morally lynched and driven away? Being feminist can not be carte blanche to bully and step on people who are doing nothing wrong, just because they do not share every single aspect of your moral doctrine. Those people were not bigots and did not deserve that treatment, Mr. Martin, their only crime was not sharing a certain ideological bent that has become very loud and vocal in the SFF world. The only people who raised their voice to defend them were those who shared their values, but it should have been all moderate members of the SFWA who defended them. When that did not happen, it was not just a slap on the face of Mike Resnick, it was a slap on the face of everyone who shares his values and considers him a good person. The same thing happens elsewhere. You do not see it, Mr. Martin, since it is not directed towards you because of your ideology, but people who have a different way of thinking feel that atmosphere very intensely, believe me. Many choose to lie low and be quiet so as not to attract attention. Others, like Mr. Correia, do not have that choice because of his past.
You ask people to condemn VD and I condemn him, because I think he incurs in hatespeech. Other people, however, are angry and say that VD is not their problem and why should they condemn anyone at the behest of those who are attacking them for their ideas or simply looking the other way when that happens. There are dozens of Vox Days on the other side of the argument, Mr. Martin, and no one is condemning them or saying that their hatespeech is not tolerable.
Absolutely bloody brilliant.
I agree that you shouldn’t give a damn what these weinies are ranting about. They’re outrage has a two minute half life. Keep being awesome and living large. However, if you really don’t give a damn, why are you both making such a big deal about it and responding in kind? Let it go. If you’re cool, you’re cool and don’t have to keep telling the world time and again. That’s not cool.
This is absolutely Saul Alinsky 101. They are pulling out all the dirty tricks, to try to crush a couple of guys who have been deemed off-script, low-hanging fruit. The nice thing for us is that many people have wisened up to the Alinsky pattern. And because the internet allows even the little guy to make his voice heard, the media can no longer dominate and smash a man without the man being able to punch up — sometimes with astounding effect.
Last week, the media were complicit in a coordinated smear job that was as buffoonish as it was obvious. Facts and getting the story straight did not matter. It was the narrative.
How many people still believe the narrative anymore? Outside the kool-aid drinkers and individuals already in the choir?
Fewer and fewer, I think.
This is an existential struggle between incompatible world views. For too long those whose default position is personal freedom and accountability have been passive to the determined assaults by greedy control freaks. Sad Puppies is more important that it would seem to the causal observer, because it is a crack the monopoly of thought enforced by the new aristocracy of the well connected.
I dunno. Lots of people who still unquestioningly swallow everything the mainstream media says will believe the worst about the Sad Puppies. How much of an impact that will have, we’ll see.
I think you are right in that this is a struggle between worldviews, but they shouldn’t be incompatible. At least they should be able to coexist in peace. If someone wants to talk about how privileged “cisgender” people are, that’s fine with me. I do not like that rhetoric but it has a place and adds another point of view to the discourse. The problem is when it becomes totalitarian, when they feel the need to intimidate and silence anyone who may not follow their ideological doctrine.
I know it’s not possible to respond to all of the attacks, but perhaps focusing on a few would be wise. And we should be correcting misinformation when people we know start spouting the party line about the SP campaign. If you voted or were involved in suggesting nominees, it would be a good time to share your experience. They may not believe a stranger on the internet, but they may believe a friend.
Mad Genius Club has an… interesting… look at the lead-up to last week.
Best wishes for a safe and happy return from your deployment.
I’m sorry it took until SP3 to rally to the flag and sign up for WSFS and Worldcon as a supporting member so I can vote and weigh in on this turbulent state of affairs. I’d have done it the first two campaigns but it looked like throwing good money after bad and so refrained.
One simply has to wonder at the shear malevolent stupidity of the SJB that don’t understand that we are simply using their own words and arguments and calling them on their hypocrisy.
Stay safe over there.
First of all, thank you for your service, and I wish all the best for you and your family during the upcoming deployment.
I just wanted to point you to an article from a few months ago that goes into greater detail regarding the thesis that the modern radial left is simply channeling old religious impulses into a new and strange form. So it’s not a coincidence that their ideas are a distorted reflection of Protestant Christianity – they’ve kept the forms and ways of thinking from their ancestors, while jettisoning the contents of the beliefs of their predecessors.
I’d have to say AG’s post above was brilliant. There’s one bit in particular I liked:
“There are dozens of Vox Days on the other side of the argument, Mr. Martin, and no one is condemning them or saying that their hatespeech is not tolerable.”
I think this is a good point. In the last few months, there have been several people on the other side saying (or applauding another’s saying) very hateful things against white cishet men (is that how it’s described?). Larry had a fisking of an article not too long ago.
How many of the people lying, calling you, Larry and the others racist, sexist etc. would you say have condemned these *real* racists sexists etc. on their side?
How many of them would you say have happily defended those people, with the “racism/sexism = power + privilege” fallacy?
I applaud you for taking this calmly and attempting to speak to the SIWs reasonably, even if they have never afforded you the same courtesy.
Good luck on your tour of duty.
” “When the first plane hit the first tower on September 11, 2001, the bubble popped.”
It was a big deal and a terrible crime, but I think you will hear […snipped for brevity…] that 9/11 was not the start in this way you suggest.”
(Speaking as another non-american reader) I understood Mr. Torgersen’s post thus: that the USians, in general (*), weren’t paying attention to the things that were happening in the Middle East and other similar regions until the conflict was brought to their doorstep. That’s when the realization of what was going on in the rest of the world hit them. As you well mention, people in other countries such as Israel and the UK had their share of attacks prior to 9/11 (although probably not one single attack of such magnitude).
Good luck on your deployment, Mr. Torgersen.
(*)- Speaking of the average public, of course. There were many people from both sides of the political spectrum talking about those conflicts prior to 9/11, but from what I remember the _general population_ of the USA didn’t pay much attention to either side, being more focused on the beginning months of George W. Bush’s presidency (or, more realistically, on which celebrity was banging who, or who got fatter or thinner, or who just won Insert_sport_championship_here that year).
Christopher M. Chupik: For the Hugo voting? I bought my associate membership and filled out my nominations, yes. Was that the registration you were asking about?
Luis: yes, just so. When 9/11 happened, America’s long lazy holiday from history — the Clinton years — ended. For the rest of the world, it never stopped. But America’s bubble burst. History reasserted itself. Lord knows that’s when I began to reconsider most of my assumptions, about a great many things. Because 9/11 was shocking proof that some of those assumptions had been dead wrong.
Yes, when we start a campaign to push back against the wrong books winning for unacceptable reasons, we are the champions of ideological diversity.
When signs of mass dissent from our own tastes, biases, and predilections are taken as prima facie evidence that a sinister conspiracy must be making people say these things, we are the champions of facts and reality.
All people whose actions match our ideology are free people. All people whose actions don’t match our ideology are only doing it to score points with/escape punishment from an invisible, all-powerful regime which is both insignificantly tiny and giant and far-reaching.
Yes, 2 plus 2 is 5.
I love Brad Torgersen.
I love Big Brother.
Where did you buy your tin hat?
GRRM has been a real trooper engaging with your views on this stuff, and I appreciate you going over to his blog to engage with him.
I for one agree with you that there are some very bad actors in the science fiction SJ movement, one of whom (Requires Hate) eventually got the reception she deserved. Others (Tempest Bradford is the best example) are still largely protected from criticism, and that is a shame. On the other hand, RH is the only one who I would say was on the same stratum of evil as Vox Day. So I suppose I disagree about just how bad the other SJ people are, aside from RH.
On the other hand, RH did eventually get what she deserved from a fellow SJW (Laura Mixon). So there is some self-policing going on on the other side of the aisle. Why don’t you reciprocate and do for VD what Mixon did for RH? Write a detailed report on VD’s racism, sexism and homophobia, so there is no room for ambiguity about just how bad this guy is. I think that’s what GRRM was suggesting you do, when he asked what you are going to do about Vox Day.
Also, you really ought to reply to GRRM’s “elephant in the room” comment on his Hate Speech post. I know it gets personal, but he asked you a question in a very careful and courteous way and I think after the effort and time he’s put into dialogue with you and Correia he deserves a response.
Gunther, I already replied to George. He hasn’t cleared the comment yet. It might take a day or two.
Thing is, Vox is not my monkey. The more you demand that I “own” him the more I put my hand out and say, “No, not my monkey.”
I can’t drive to his house and beat him up, nor can I make him stop. Unlike Benjanun, there is no alter-ego to unmask. Everyone knows Beale is Vox, and Vox is Beale. I’ve got zero-point-zero leverage there.
K. Tempest Bradford and Nora Jemisin get away with what they do, because progressive white folk are too nervous to take on people who will accuse them of racism; and according to the “rules” of critical race theory, the brown person can never be wrong.
But even if progressive whites did stand up to Nora and K. Tempest, both Nora and K. Tempest would keep doing what they are doing too.
Really, what people are demanding I do is slap out the required bumper-sticker opprobrium to signal that I am “one of the good guys” and the truth is that the whole clusterfuck is far more complex than any bumper sticker disavowal can accommodate.
I don’t have anything to prove, honestly. If people want to say I am a bad man, they will invent reasons to say I am a bad man. If I try to kick the ball through the goal posts, they will merely move the goal posts. Not George, per se, but people who are equating me with Vox, and Vox with me, and because I won’t slap out the required bumper sticker, I am somehow approving of Vox, or condoning him.
I detest the triangulation going on here. Just because I don’t excommunicate Vox, doesn’t mean I think Vox’s language is awesome, nor does it mean I agree with him.
I actually read an article that claimed Theresa’s CHORFs were leading a Valiant Fight Against The Entrenched, Conservative Clique In Control Of The Hugos.
I could actually -feel- neurons imploding from the spin.
The important part of Mixon’s article about RH was not the unmasking of her identities. That was already done by Mamatas.
The important part was collecting a record of all her bad behavior and presenting it in a way that no one could ignore. After that was done, the voices of RH’s previous supporters died off, because everyone with a brain could see that she was bad news. Not just bad news, but beyond the pale.
I’m not saying you have any obligation to do the same thing for VD. I’m saying it would be a wonderful thing for you to do, should you choose. and it would earn you lots of good will from many quarters.
>I detest the triangulation going on here. Just because I don’t excommunicate Vox, doesn’t mean I think Vox’s language is awesome, nor does it mean I agree with him.
It does mean you don’t think he’s beyond the pale. But he is. That’s what people are trying to tell you. He’s so bad that good people ought to excommunicate him, as they’ve done with RH.
Your position on this kind of thing doesn’t make sense to me. On the one hand, you’re tired of lefties sitting back and letting Bradford do her thing without criticizing her. On the other hand, you yourself are happy to sit back and let VD do his thing without criticizing him.
I think there is a difference between guilt by association and guilt by shared ideology, especially when it comes to such a specific ideology where all are on board with “white privilege” and “rape culture.” The former is nonsense, the latter is a case where it is legitimate to ask what YOUR PEOPLE are doing, because the truth is, there is no separation.
Saying Mixon does not share RH’s views is ludicrous. They are in perfect ideological alignment. What RH did to break the rule is to (rarely) include PoC in her takedowns. And keep in mind, RH publicly stated she never did that with the same vitriol she did to whites.
RH herself writes “…though I’ve called R. Scott Bakker a shit-eating roach (and will happily continue to!), you can be sure I won’t be calling any minority writer anything like that, and have never done so.”
In other words her crime was straying from that fold AT ALL. Mixon is not disagreeing with RH but lassoing her in.
“Brianna gets no sympathy from me; if you create anger, and profit from anger, then it’s your own fault if you’re burned by the mob you helped whip up.”
Same here. And for those who called him a “false woman”, well that’s entirely factually accurate.
Richard McEnroe: Actually, it was the registration at The Daily Beast, for commenting.
I see Brad’s biggest “fan” from Twitter is here. And there’s a link back to one of the sites which has been pushing the “Larry is Vox’s puppet” conspiracy theory.
Dang it, are we puppets of Vox or GamerGate? If I’m going to be the pawn of a sinister conspiracy, I want to know *which* conspiracy!
Chris, last time I checked the leaderboard, it’s either Dick Cheney, The Boy Scouts of America, or the Our Lady of the Blessed Shroud Alumni Association.
Larry, I’m registered there. I’ve commented before. Which means I may not be registered there anymore, I guess.
Alexandra: you have just described the faculty lounge mentality of the clique dominating the Hugos and SFWA for the last ten years.
And as with most faculty lounge squabbles, their behavior is so vicious because their rewards are so small.
This is my Darth Vader impersonation:
“Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. ALeexANdra Ereen: Eediot! Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.”
“If people want to say I am a bad man, they will invent reasons to say I am a bad man. If I try to kick the ball through the goal posts, they will merely move the goal posts”
Exactly. What evidence is there that Brad shares Vox’s beliefs? None. So why should he disown him? This is just the standard left-wing tactic of guilt by association combined with trying to get the moderates to denounce anyone more extreme. When the moderates do it, whether in cultural matters or politics, they get butkus from the Left. The left uses it, “see Vox day really is beyond the pale even Brad Torgersen thinks he’s beyond the pale” but the moderates themselves don’t get any good will. In the future, no Leftist will say, “Oh lets give Brad a pass on Bad comment X because he denounced Vox, he’s a good guy”. Instead they will act like the denunciation of Vox never happened and call Brad every name in the book.
“When signs of mass dissent”
You mean like Foz Meadows (barely) breaking the top one million list on Amazon?
That’s a mass of something, all right, but I don’t think “dissent” is the word you’re looking for here. 🙂
Wonderfully said. I had the impression you were going squishy but clearly I was wrong.
Nobody is saying that Brad shares VD’s beliefs.
What GRRM said was, only Nixon could go to China. only a left-winger like Mixon could criticize RH in a way that would cut into her left-wing support network, and only someone with unimpeachable conservative credentials, like Brad or Correia (or both), could criticize VD in a way that would potentially cut into his right-wing support network.
If another prominent conservative like Orson Scott Card or Jerry Pournelle did it, that would be helpful in the same way. But it would sure be great if *someone* from the right did it. Someone needs to step up to the plate, and the Sad Puppies leaders are the spokespeople for conservatism in SF right now.
I don’t read Vox’s blog. I tend to only follow the blogs of authors I enjoy reading, and I tried a couple of Vox’s works and didn’t find them enjoyable, so I stopped reading them. So, with that in mind, here’s my question to you: What precisely has Vox said that’s so bad? In several years of seeing people on the ‘net freak out about Vox, I’ve only seen the one comment calling Jemisin a “half-savage” being directly quoted as evidence of his racism/sexism/other-isms. I’ve not seen anything else. Do you have quotes to back it up?
If you’ve been following any of the Puppies blogs for any length of time at all (like a few days), you’ll have seen a fellow by the name of James May posting quotes from the non-Puppies side of things. Many of these quotes are quite awful. He’s been doing this for months or years, and has quite the stockpile. Yet I never manage to see anyone posting direct quotes of Vox that he’s so awful. If you want people to disavow him, perhaps, you should present some evidence of what he’s said that is so foul as to warrant a McCarthyesque “I’m not now nor have I ever been a member of the Vox Day Fanclub” type of disavowal.
Also, if you’re wanting people to disavow Vox, are you, by any chance, going to any of the sites like Making Light, and listing off some of the quotes May’s collected and asking people there to disavow those people? Or is your desire for such statements just pointed one way, and that way points to Vox?
“Not George, per se, but people who are equating me with Vox, and Vox with me, and because I won’t slap out the required bumper sticker, I am somehow approving of Vox, or condoning him.”
But you do have to appreciate the irony of this taking place in a GRRM post that opened with a discussion of the evils of McCarthyism.
In what Universe is Scott Card a conservative?
“I remember in the wake of 9/11 there seemed to be two camps forming. The first camp devoted itself almost entirely to the question: What did we do to deserve this, and how can we say we’re sorry? The second camp asked: How can we bring the perpetrators to justice, and what can be done to stop them in the future?”
can we not do both? For we ARE most certainly to blame for much of the trouble in the Middle East … recognizing and owning that is important in not making the same mistakes over and over … and something that we have obviously failed to learn. Stopping them in the future will almost certainly be tied to NOT making those mistakes over and over.
Julaire, this is written in a combative style to say the least, but it contains some bigoted VD quotes with citations:
>In what Universe is Scott Card a conservative?
Card says he’s not a republican, but the only issue on which I’m aware of him actually holding liberal views is immigration. Can you think of another?
On the other side of the scale, (1) he has always supported the Iraq war, (2) he has argued in favor of the Republican candidate in every election since 1992, (3) he is anti-same-sex-marriage, (4) he opposes Obamacare, (5) he often expresses the opinion that entitlement spending is a mistake, (6) he doesn’t believe in global warming, and I could go on a long time but I’ll leave it at that…
I also commented with some links to VD’s bigotry, but I guess that’s awaiting moderation because it contains links?
Show me this clique, if you can, and I’ll be happy to form a judgment of them myself. I have seen (and no one has furnished) any actual evidence of such a clique dominating the Hugos, only the repeated assertion that there must be such a clique to explain how ________ won when ________ lost/wasn’t nominated held up as evidence. There’s not much of substance there to take in, even before we consider things like GRRM’s by-the-numbers analysis of wins and losses.
What I was describing is what I see here, on this blog and and in the comments. The fact that the Sad Puppies campaign has branded itself as being pro-freedom/anti-authoritarian doesn’t change the fact that it’s predicated on the belief that the wrong things were winning for the wrong reasons and Something Must Be Done About This.
Now, call me silly, but when I see that people like a thing I don’t like, I might question their tastes and judgment, if I was in an ungenerous mood, but I like to think I would more often shrug, say, “Different strokes.” and move on.
Regardless of my mood, what I wouldn’t do is to conclude, “The only logical explanation for this is that most of these people are being blackmailed by the rest of them, who are only pretending to like these things for political reasons.”
What I wouldn’t do is mobilize a movement to liberate them from the fake opinions I’m sure some shadowy group must have forced them to adopt.
That’s a huge leap, apart from being a monstrously arrogant way to react to the fact that different people like different things for different reasons.
I keep hearing that this “side” is the one that’s all about evidence and freedom. Well, you’re free to provide some evidence for that if you want, but so far I’m not seeing it.
Correction: I HAVEN’T seen any evidence. The smallest typos make the biggest swings in meaning.
The left loves to conflate the recognition that differences exist between the races, in a statistical sense, with racial hatred and intolerance. That’s because they are the hateful ones who oppose diversity, since they cannot grasp how it could be possible to respect or love those who are different from ourselves. To mask this hatred and intolerance, they invented the lie that differences simply do not exist between the races, and even between the sexes.
Over at Abi Nussbaum’s house of fun, it’s whites vs. non-whites in a battle to the finish using intersectional rules of privilege. There are many punches up and down but no knocks-outs yet. Threats of a law suit heighten the drama. It is human drama. I cried like a baby reading it. Poor Requires Hate to be swept up in this carnage. What did she do to deserve such a fate?
I’m not saying you have any obligation to do the same thing for VD. I’m saying it would be a wonderful thing for you to do, should you choose. and it would earn you lots of good will from many quarters.
Pull the other one, Gunther, it’s got bells on.
Miss Erin, intersectional gender feminism is an extremely specific ideology centered around only two subjects:
A.) The multiple intersecting vectors of oppression from those at the bottom rung of intersectional society, i.e., gay, black, woman, postcolonial, etc.
B.) The notion that the binary masculine/feminine expression of gender is a fake construct a patriarchy have used to oppress women for thousands of years and is unnatural.
Now, that’s pretty damn weird. Weird enough I would be able to confidently state about 0% of Americans are on board with it or even know about it. In short, it easily meets the standards of what might be considered a cult. That aside, alarm bells should go off when statistical zero becomes 100%.
To find 100% of the winners of last year’s major Hugo awards are intersectionalists is downright creepy. For “actual evidence” one need only read the non-fiction comments of those winners. They are dyed-in-the-wool intersectionalists. There’s your clique. The 100% holds true for last years Nebula winners as well.
This is not a shadowy group or secret cabal. They have openly stated their intentions and beliefs in thousands of Tweets and blog posts ranging from the last two presidents of the SFWA to Lightspeed and Strange Horizons. They rountinely self-identify using the word “intersectionalist” and never shut up about race and gender. This couldn’t be more obvious. They ask us to “bone up” on intersectionality, “Google intersectionality” and state their feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit. It’s possible they shit intersectionality.
In short, they’re intersectionalists with an intersectional kicker followed by intersectional dessert.
Plus they’re intersectionalists. What in 18 blazing hells more do you need to be shown?
@Julaire: Yes, there are definitely heated voices on both sides– any if we judge the sides by the examples of their worst Internet commenters, we’ll never get anywhere. But that’s not who VD is. He’s a loud and central players who has persisted for years shitting on everybody over and over again, and is repeatedly given a loud platform at the center of the genre. The Sad Puppies slate included nominations from Day’s publishing outfit, Castalia House, and two nominations for John C. Wright, one of Day’s writers– in the past, Wright has said that the instinctive reaction of men is to beat gay couples to death with tire irons, and compared outspoken LGBT allies like myself to termites who need to be exterminated.
I don’t care about the left/right or conservative/liberal divide in this context. I care about a community and a world where my LGBT friends and loved ones can feel safe, and a fan community where they feel welcome. (I am not LGBT personally, but my brother is, and many of my friends in the genre are.) In this context, it doesn’t even matter if you agree with gay marriage or anti-discrimination laws or a hundred other political details, if you can at least treat LGBT folks with respect and like human beings, then that’s okay. Wright and Day are not those people, not in the slightest, and you’ve helped give them a platform, and a spotlight on one of the most prestigious stages in the genre.
I should note here that I think Day & Wright have the right to spew hate on their blogs, and publish whatever they want– I’m not pro-censorship, believe it or not– but I don’t think they deserve to be in the discussion for the Hugo Awards, which are supposed to represent the best of our genre and our community. On a personal level, it’s important to me that the fan community be a place where LGBT folks do not feel persecuted for their identity (keep in mind, that’s not just their beliefs, but their very identity)– and it sends a devastating message when people like Wright win six nominations. (Yes, I know, that was the Rabid Puppies, but Brad still nominated him twice.)
P.S. On a separate note, Julaire, Orson Scott Card has been on the board of the National Organization for Marriage. He is very much an outspoken social conservative, even if he doesn’t toe the conservative line on other issues.
Guilt by association is nothing new, we humans seem to like shoving other humans into roles and requiring them to behaving in the manner they’ve been assigned regardless if they accept it or not.
But this is just another case of “Polite Society” not really being polite
“I care about a community and a world where my LGBT friends and loved ones can feel safe, and a fan community where they feel welcome”
Fascism and left-wing thought control disguised as caring. Clever.
“Damien Walter @damiengwalter · 2h2 hours ago
Torgersen can’t stand up to Vox Day. His rage is reserved for…Nora Jemisin and Tempest Bradford. Sigh. Very sigh.”
Stand up to him? Good Lord. The disconnect from reality is truly breathtaking to behold.
The Vox-controls-the-Puppies conspiracy theorists? Let’s call them Hugo-Truthers. Seems appropriate.
Anti-authoritarian? I thought you wrote Military SF, and the stuff of yours I read from last year’s Hugo nominations seemed hardly anti-authoritarian.
(BTW, I ranked you lower than Beale’s story last year – his did have a soul, even if his main character didn’t and his own is ugly and twisted, but yours just didn’t. It was the classic “fighting the enemy because they’re the enemy”, with no real insight into the characters or the situation.)
“I care about a community and a world where my LGBT friends and loved ones can feel safe, and a fan community where they feel welcome”
As do I. That’s why I oppose the SJWs.
To clarify, I, personally, have not participated in the nomination or voting process in the Hugos ever, not even this year. I’m just an interested observer. And I, personally, have not given anyone on either side a platform. If anything, some people like Brad have provided me a platform in which to discuss the topic.
But, as I understand it, the point of the Sad Puppies campaign, as stated by Brad, is to promote good works of fiction, *regardless* of the politics of the author or publisher. The point of the campaign is: What does it matter if Wright or Vox (or, conversely, Jemisin or Bradford), are bigots if they tell good stories? In a society where speech is free, what their opinions are shouldn’t matter in the context of an award for their fiction– unless, of course, that message is being brandished about like a cudgel within the context of the fiction.
And, of course, you are welcome to disagree with that assessment if that’s what you wish, but I came away from this discussion with the perception that lots of people felt that John Wright wrote a bunch of *really well-written* sci-fi stories. I didn’t get the impression that anyone (at least on Brad’s, Larry’s, or Sarah’s blogs, which I do read), chose to nominate Wright because “Oh, I think he hates LGBT people, and I think that’s awesome”.
I also came away with the impression (just based on the slate, not on any blog posts by Vox that I didn’t read), that the RP slate was mostly “This is stuff my publishing house published, and you should all vote for that” with a side of “and it’ll annoy the SJWs because they hate me” not a case of “Let’s get a bunch of racist, misogynist rants published”.
See, the reason I haven’t nominated or voted is my reading time is limited, and there are a few authors I like and read, but I don’t feel I have the breadth of knowledge on what works were good to pick a selection of the best. And I fall in the category of people who have gone back to all our old favorites for years and years because all the new stuff being written struck me as cudgel-bludgeoning. I also prefer fantasy to sci-fi, and the Hugos are definitely more of a sci-fi award. But if I were to get a membership with the intention of voting, I’d read (or at least attempt to read) everything on the ballot and judge them by their works.
Working under the assumption you’ve got a membership, I ask you, are you going to judge the nominated works on their own merits, or are you going to judge them on the politics of the authors? If you do the latter, you’re just proving the point that Larry made when he started this whole thing a couple years ago– that to the modern Hugo crowd, politics and ideology matter more than if a work is good or not.
emember, all of those who support quality SFF with actual stories can STILL BUY A SUPPORTING MEMBERSHIP to Sasquan for 40 semoleons, which gets one a packet of ebooks of thenominees, probably worth $80 on the market, the right to vote this year, and the right to nominate next year.
I don’t actually have a problem with bigots like Day or Wright winning awards if they’re deserved. Wright’s first Night Land novella from some years back was excellent, and I would have been glad to see it win a Hugo. But something makes me doubt that every single thing he’s written for Castalia House in the past year is Hugo material. Now there’s a coincidence that’s downright creepy!
James, it’s pretty obvious that in last year’s Hugos, there was a certain amount of backlash against Sad Puppies that led to the all-feminist ticket of winners. Previous years have not been so party line. Also, it’s strange that you’re focusing only on the winners and not on the nominees.
Yeah, that’s bullshit. There’s a post at Angry Black Woman from 2009 called “Intersectionality.” It uses the word 21 times. Bradford started that site. Jemisin and “Cat” are in the comments. It has nothing to do with a backlash. That’s like saying I started intersectionalism.
And why in the world wouldn’t I mention the winners? Should I mention the janitors who cleaned up afterwards? And by the way, the nominees clock out at 87% intersectionalists. We’re already aware about previous years. How many times do I have to point out this is a brand new fad in core SFF?
This has nothing to do with SP. You’re putting the cart before the horse because you don’t know what you’re talking about. SP is a reaction to all this white privilege. Saying it’s “obvious” it’s the other way around is retarded. I guess I should’ve figured someone would come along and suggest SP created the white privilege movement. In an ocean of brainless comments this week yours is right up there.
only a left-winger like Mixon could criticize RH in a way that would cut into her left-wing support network, and only someone with unimpeachable conservative credentials, like Brad or Correia (or both), could criticize VD in a way that would potentially cut into his right-wing support network.
1) We do not need to go any further down the road of requiring public denunciations, disavowing, and signed declarations of denial. Not one step.
Even if we were to drag VD from his house and shoot him in the street, the people baying for blood would only shift their attention to the next person on the list. (And the same goes, frankly, for Requires Hate.) The thirst of the mob is not quenched by such things, but only fed.
2) There is no two.
You are not required to invite anyone into your living room. You are not required to speak with anyone. You are not allowed to smear any one else with the actions of another. You are not allowed to hold anyone else accountable for the crimes of another.
I am not Vox Day. I do not speak for him, he does not speak for me. He has never come to me for support. You have a problem with something he said, go address it to him. You have a problem with something I said, take it up with me. You have some evidence of criminal activity on the part of VD, report it to the authorities.
I have heard many times that VD is abrasive, rude, socially aggressive, uncouth, enraging, and not a progressive. If someone cared to ask if I disagreed with that statement, I would have to say that I have seen nothing to indicate that description is inaccurate, and much to support it. None of that is illegal, nor particularly actionable.
When we change the rules on the internet so that it is not permitted to be an asshole, do let me know. I have a long list of people who I would feel it would be my duty to inform them of this new development. (A long list.)
Until then, I have more than enough to fill my hours.
>Yeah, that’s bullshit. There’s a post at Angry Black Woman from 2009 called “Intersectionality.” It uses the word 21 times. Bradford started that site. Jemisin and “Cat” are in the comments. It has nothing to do with a backlash. That’s like saying I started intersectionalism.
What does that post have to do with the Hugo Awards?
I agree with you that there is a much greater percentage of hardcore feminists among Hugo winners and nominees than there is among the general population. What does that prove? College professors are much more liberal than average Americans, and soldiers are much more conservative. These are all just self-selection effects.
Well, ideally, to prove that there’s a clique that’s controlling the Hugos by nominating works exclusively for their political ideologies rather than questions of quality or even individual taste, I’d need to see proof of that.
Even if I take your assertion that 100% of the winners across the board all subscribed to this same ideology and even if we could infer they all hold it to the same degree and it translates into their work in the same fashion… um… well, so, people who believe the wrong ideas won and this is a problem?
Tell me again which side of this fracas is advocating groupthink and trying to punish people for holding bad ideas?
He’s a loud and central players who has persisted for years shitting on everybody over and over again, and is repeatedly given a loud platform at the center of the genre.
If you think that VD is “the center of the genre” I suggest you check your geography.
Wright has said that the instinctive reaction of men is to beat gay couples to death with tire irons, and compared outspoken LGBT allies like myself to termites who need to be exterminated.
It’s not that difficult to include citations and direct quotes with these. I suggest you do so, because 1) if true, it will greatly strengthen your case and 2) if not true, help you avoid having to retract statements.
I care about a community and a world where my LGBT friends and loved ones can feel safe, and a fan community where they feel welcome.
A place where all humans are safe starts with a world where no one is under threat of publically denouncing and exiling those who have drawn the ire of the mob. Once we start down the road where anyone person might the next one cut from the herd and burned at the stake, none of us are safe – particularly not the minorities most traditionally at risk. You are not the only one who has beloved ones to protect.
I don’t think [VD and Wright] deserve to be in the discussion for the Hugo Awards, which are supposed to represent the best of our genre and our community.
NO. IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE BEST PEOPLE OF ANYTHING. NO.
This is not a “good people” contest. This is not a “largest soul” contest. This is not a “person whom I love the best” award. NO. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES NO.
You want to start an award for “best person in the SFF field” – go for it. I’d likely support it. But be under absolutely no misamprehension that “Best Novel” or “Best Short Story” or any of the others are about the specialness of the person. NO. It is about the work that they do.
On a personal level, it’s important to me that the fan community be a place where LGBT folks do not feel persecuted for their identity (keep in mind, that’s not just their beliefs, but their very identity)
So start helping to make it a place where the persecution OF ANYONE is off limits – including the people you dislike, and the people you fear, and the people you think should be silenced, shut down, and shunned.
It’s really really freaking easy to talk about disavowing people when it’s folks you dislike from the get go. And it’s really easy to talk about protecting people when it’s people you like.
A hell of a lot harder when it’s people you would just as soon wish never touched your life.
The SFF left has a very long way to go before they demonstrate to me that they are willing to make those kinds of calls. Until then, SP is here.
And if SP starts deciding who to renounce, I will be here.
[fixed for yah! – Brad]
I mean, James, forgive me for going on but it seems like your stance is “Nobody shares the values of intersectional feminists so whenever intersectional feminists win anything it must obviously be rigged in their favor.”
That’s not logic or evidence-based reasoning. You here in SPs have a premise about past winners that might be stated variously as things like: “nobody likes these books, nobody likes these people, nobody shares their ideas.”
Now, we have information that seemingly conflicts with this supposition, in the form of acclaim and awards for the books under discussion.
At this point you could conclude that your original supposition was flawed, that you mistook a commonly held belief among your own immediate social circle for some universal.
Or you could double-down and start inventing conspiracy theories that let you hold onto the original contention.
Well, I’m speaking hypothetically, but we can all see which one you’re choosing.
Now, maybe you think that hardcore intersectional feminism is such a fringe belief that it justifies you making these leaps. But I’d like to invite you to consider something, something that should be obvious to a side that prides itself on what it calls ideological diversity.
Is the pool of people who might think that women in science fiction are under-represented likely to be larger than the pool of those who identify as intersectional feminists? I’d say yes, it is possible, even likely. In fact, I’d say the pool of people who want to see more and better representation for women is likely bigger (and not perfectly overlapping with) those who identify as feminists.
You don’t have to subscribe to a Cause With A Capital C to recognize when it’s doing something that aligns with your values, you see. Nor do you have to do so to recognize when a group of people are trying trample said cause for reasons that are poorly founded and wish to do something about it.
For all that you seem to think you’re opposed to things like purity tests and party line thinking, James, you also seem to assume that the entire world MUST work along those lines. All the conclusions you make, all the things you think constitute “evidence”, it all rests on a foundation of pure Us vs. Them-ism.
Alexandra Erin: I see from your Twitter that you are making a number of assertions about Brad while admitting that you haven’t read any of his works. His first novel, The Chaplain’s War, should be available at your local library. It’s not a long book and when you’re finished, you will at least have something to base your opinions of him on besides what you’re heard online. If nothing else, the discussion might be steered in a more productive direction.
You know, I honestly don’t even know how to respond to people like Erin and Gunther.
“Nobody is saying that Brad shares VD’s beliefs.”
On the contrary, lots of people have been claiming that the past week.
Aren’t you the weirdo who claimed to witness your boyfriend being raped by a woman? Go buzz off. You’re too weird for me. If someone can understand your form of logic go talk to them.
In point of fact, apparently because I won’t ritually denounce Vox Day, I am automatically his bosom buddy. This is the manipulative calculus of the discussion. Those you do not revile and hate, are automatically your besties. And vice versa. I still can’t quite grasp that grown adults think like this.
“The Sad Puppies slate included nominations from Day’s publishing outfit, Castalia House, and two nominations for John C. Wright, one of Day’s writers– in the past, Wright has said that the instinctive reaction of men is to beat gay couples to death with tire irons, and compared outspoken LGBT allies like myself to termites who need to be exterminated.”
Actually, Andrew, what I said was that no one has an instinctive desire to beat lipstick Lesbians, which is why the writers of LEGEND OF KORRA selected two young, attractive, and fit young ladies as their exemplars of same sex attraction.
As to whether or not there is such a desire to beat gay men, the gay lobby are the ones who tell me of the constant danger of homophobia, a word they invented to rob common decency of common dignity. Am I to be called a bigot now merely for repeating back gay lobby propaganda?
Second, it was not outspoken advocates of LGBT that I called termites. That metaphor makes no sense. Termites are ill regarded precisely because the damage is invisible and long term. The writers of Korra were the ones I called termites, and it was precisely because their attempts were subtle, sneaky, hidden and subversive.
And, technically, Korra and Asami are only B, since they both had a boyfriend in earlier episodes, and the other letters of your alphabet soup of sexual confusion and perversion do not apply in this case.
You did not read what I wrote, did you? You are quoting someone quoting someone quoting someone else, are you not?
The only person who’d find “ammosexual” an insult would be someone who’s, um, firing blanks.
“But something makes me doubt that every single thing he’s written for Castalia House in the past year is Hugo material. Now there’s a coincidence that’s downright creepy!”
Because this is ten years or more of material which I could not publish anywhere else, until Castalia House gave me a venue. It is not my fault that a decades worth of work was first published this one year for the first time.
And before you decide whether my offering is more Hugo worthy or less than ‘The Rain That Falls from Nowhere’ or ‘If You Were a Dinosaur My Love’ I suggest you read my works, and judge them on the merits.
What happened is that Rapid Puppies put me on the slate and so did Sad Puppies, and ergo two difference constituencies read my works, like them as much as you did, and put up their money, and voted.
The only thing sinister or surprising is that the SJWs had crap this year, and did not get enough slate votes to dominate, or even make, the ballot. That caught everyone unawares.
Yes, I do have a membership, and I’ve debated what to do. Ultimately, I’ve decided that I will indeed give the stories a fair reading– BUT I will vote for No Award for Vox Day and John C. Wright. I’m sorry. Ultimately, I care about my LGBT friends and loved ones too much to see either of them given that kind of spotlight. I’m happy to vote for people who I disagree with politically, and will likely do so– I think various people who I do disagree with on certain things, including Toni Weisskopf and Edmund Schubert, are more than deserving of a Hugo. I’d happily give Brad or Larry a fair reading if they were on the ballot. But I will not vote for anyone who rages and rants against the very identity and existence of people I love.
>>If you think that VD is “the center of the genre” I suggest you check your geography.
That’s not what I said. I said he’s repeatedly given a spotlight (i.e. a loud voice) at the center of the genre– like right now, with his Rabid Puppies, or the huge SFWA controversy which led to his eventual expulsion.
>>It’s not that difficult to include citations and direct quotes with these. I suggest you do so, because 1) if true, it will greatly strengthen your case and 2) if not true, help you avoid having to retract statements.
Apologies; the quotes are widely circulated and my post was long enough already. But below is what Wright wrote in response to end of Legends of Korra, in which two women held hands while walking off into the Spirit World together:
“Mr DiMartino and Mr Konietzko: You are disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth. You have earned the contempt and hatred of all decent human beings forever, and we will do all we can to smash the filthy phallic idol of sodomy you bow and serve and worship. Contempt, because you struck from behind, cravenly; and hatred, because you serve a cloud of morally-retarded mental smog called Political Correctness, which is another word for hating everything good and bright and decent and sane in life.
I have no hatred in my heart for any man’s politics, policies, or faith, any more than I have hatred for termites; but once they start undermining my house where I live, it is time to exterminate them.”
I’m not going to link the source, because links tend to get comments caught in spam filters. But Google “John C. Wright Legends of Korra” and his own blog is very easy to find.
In a genre like SF&F, where we want people to feel free to be able to tell their stories (and where many LGBT friends of mine feel like they have space to do so) Mr. Wright’s words are particularly egregious. He wants to drive such people entirely out of places he occupies– and not just them, but their allies, like myself. He claims to have no hatred in his heart, but if that previous paragraph isn’t seething hatred, then nothing is. I want my LGBT friends to have a place where they’re welcome to tell their stories along with the rest of us– and if that is world-destroying political correctness, then we have nothing more to say to each other.
Among the reasons I’m a writer– besides simply wanting to tell a good story– is that I believe that storytelling helps us have empathy for other people, and see things from other people’s viewpoints. But Mr. Wright does not want to see other people’s viewpoints, or even be reminded of their existence. That’s not political, that’s deeply personal. He’s welcome to say and publish what he wants, but I will not vote to give this man a Hugo award.
>>You want to start an award for “best person in the SFF field” – go for it. I’d likely support it. But be under absolutely no misamprehension that “Best Novel” or “Best Short Story” or any of the others are about the specialness of the person. NO. It is about the work that they do.
I agree– up to a point. Like it or not, the Hugo Awards represent the SF&F genre to the outside world. Their works are given places of honor at bookstores and libraries, and they get more coverage and exposure than most works, and their names are recorded in the history of the Hugos and of fandom. The winners, to some extent, represent the genre and the community to the rest of the world, not just now but in the future as well.
Now, do I think the Hugo is a Best Person award? Of course not, and I never said that. I don’t think politics should enter in it, nor kindness– Harlan Ellison was a dick, by many accounts, but he certainly deserved his accolades. I think Larry Correia is kind of a dick (and I suspect he’d be fine with me saying that) but I’d have no problem with him getting a Hugo. But I do draw a line at the type of hateful, awful ranting done by Mr. Wright. Maybe you’d draw the line differently than me, and that’s fine– we’ll vote our various ways and see who wins.
I hope if Kameron Hurley, or K. Tempest Bradford, or any of the other various people who the Sad Puppies disagree with were up for a Hugo, you’d give them a fair reading– just as I’d do the same for Torgersen or Correia. Because if we can’t differentiate between heated political disagreement and unapologetic raging hate speech, then there’s really no much hope for this discussion at all.
OSC believes in a “managed economy.” He describes himself as a “communitarian.” He actually wrote (word-for-word and unironically) that old cliche, “Real communism has never been tried!”
Not exactly conservative beliefs. His social-issue positions stem mostly from his religion.
@FuryOfFirestorm Brianna Wu is trans. S/he is also a nice person. I’ve done a panel with her at Arisia about computer art.
As for the main topic, I’ve noticed that while many SJWs are furious at the SP’s daring to shoot back, I’ve also noticed many liberals getting put off by much of this nonsense. Saturday night, I had a long chat with a very liberal past Hugo nominee for non fiction about the SP. While he has no love of the SP, he felt that (1) the Hugos were already broken and (2) much of the reaction of hypocritical and disingenuous. (Not going to name the gent since we were at a gathering of smut writers.)
wow. all i have heard is from the *other guy*….whose site i visit all the time….today, i decided to come see what you had to say….and i am totally blown away. i won’t pretend to have anything substantive to say (i can’t even be bothered to use capitals) but suffice it to say that if THIS article got any traction in those mainstream media site, things would turn about, and quickly.
>And before you decide whether my offering is more Hugo worthy or less than ‘The Rain That Falls from Nowhere’ or ‘If You Were a Dinosaur My Love’ I suggest you read my works, and judge them on the merits.
I may or may not get around to doing that, John (not a Worldcon member, btw). I’ve enjoyed some of your work in the past, like I said. But so we’re clear up front, being better than one of the worst “stories” ever nominated for a Hugo (“If You Were a Dinosaur”) doesn’t automatically mean your work deserves a Hugo nom.
>In point of fact, apparently because I won’t ritually denounce Vox Day, I am automatically his bosom buddy. This is the manipulative calculus of the discussion. Those you do not revile and hate, are automatically your besties. And vice versa. I still can’t quite grasp that grown adults think like this.
That’s certainly not how I think, or what I’ve said. I don’t think you and VD are besties just because you don’t revile him. But some people deserve revulsion, and the fact that you (apparently) don’t revile VD is a little weird.
I mean, what would someone of your persuasion say if I said “look, I’m not Requires Hate’s bosom buddy, but I’m not going to condemn her either… to borrow a phrase, I occupy a sort of fuzzy middle ground on the Requires Hate, good or bad, question”? That would be a pretty morally bankrupt stance for me to take, wouldn’t it?
Please stop avoiding the quesiton. Where can I buy a tin hat? I want to join your group. You shouldn’t be excluding people like this.
@Andrew. Well, I thought I had finished commenting, but apparently I have one more comment in me.
It’s sad, perhaps not to the level of tragic, but still sad, that you can’t overcome your own biases to judge the works solely on their merits. Particularly when you appear to consider Bradford less hateful than Wright. Given the quotes I’ve seen posted from Bradford, her speech is far more hateful than anything of Wright’s you’ve posted here. Yet you’re willing to give her a pass on her opinions and hope that people will give her work the merit-based judgement you’re unwilling to give to Wright. That is, of course, your opinion and your right, but it’s still sad that you can’t put aside that bias to judge the work on its own merits.
If the measuring stick isn’t applied equally to all parties, then it’s not a stick worth using. If the works of Hurley or Correia are allowed to be judged on the merit of the work, then the same should be applied to Wright or Vox Day, or Chu (assuming he writes, I don’t know if he does) or anyone else.
Honestly, the more people I hear talking about voting No Award without reading the works, the more inclined I am to divert the $40 out of my other budgets and scrape together the hours necessary to read everything just to make one more drop in the bucket of the merit-based award to try to balance out the No Award flood.
Whether I agree with Mr. Wright’s personal assessments in the Legend of Korra article (having not seen the show, I find it hard to comment intelligently), or whether I find them particularly spiteful or hateful is immaterial to his nominations on the Hugo ballot. What matters is are those works the best in those categories or are they not?
Wright writes: “The only thing sinister or surprising is that the SJWs had crap this year, and did not get enough slate votes to dominate, or even make, the ballot. That caught everyone unawares.”
Maybe you’re not familiar with the Hugo nominating process, but it doesn’t use slate votes (well, it didn’t until this year) – it’s individual nominations, and excluding the Slate Puppies, it got around the same number of nominations it typically gets, which is small enough that a well-organized slate could beat it. That means that (for instance) Jo Walton’s “What makes this book so great” got crowded out of the nominations for Best Related Work, in spite of the number of people who thought it was amazingly good and would vote for it in the actual elections, and so did that biography of Heinlein, in spite of the number of Puppies who say they want more Heinlein-like writing. And Chinese writer Liu Cixin’s “The Three-Body Problem”, which isn’t particularly SJWy, got crowded out of the Best Novel nominations – I was looking forward to reading that.
Effectively, the Slate Puppies became a nominating committee, picked the works that would get in, and excluded everything else. Normally there’s a wide diversity of work and taste, and I expect the nominees to range from things I really like to things I don’t, with a bunch of stuff I hadn’t encountered before. This year, except for a few categories which the slates didn’t cover or where the slate nominees dropped out, all I’ll get in the packet is work that the Puppies liked (which at least for the Rabid Puppies, is really just Beale, though Brad took a somewhat broader approach to survey people who like the kinds of things he likes.)
I’m curious – did Beale do any actual editing on all those works of yours he published this year? How did you have time to do all the rewrites? Or was it just copy-editing or formatting? One reason I prefer work from actual publishing houses to self-pub is that good editors really make a difference; I guess when I see the reader packet I’ll have an idea of how good an editor Beale is.
Here’s the stupid in intersectional feminism from Requires Hate and some other dipshit:
“Beetori Sritruslow retweeted dilettante @dilettante · Apr 10 White people: before you praise a WP (Mixon) for bravely using their white privilege to speak out, maybe critically ask yourself is this person supported by established power structures Like…say..idk…married to the head (Gould) of the relevant professional association (SFWA) & literally being promoted by the best-selling author (GRRM) in the field, and being nominated for the community’s highest award MAYBE that person is not ‘speaking Truth to Power’ … maybe that person ∗is∗ Power.”
Yeah… mebbe… mebbe white power. Mixon, Gould, the SFWA and GRRM are all white supremacists who disguise themselves by promoting anti-white white privilege. Jemisin’s right: I have to hand it to them, whites are “diabolical” when it comes to misdirection.
And we have unprincipled idiots like Erin coming on here and basically saying that a cult which commonly starts out with the equivalent of “Dear Black People…” (but which would never actually do that) is just “wrong ideas” I should look at critically or some bullshit.”
“Beetori Sritruslow @talkinghive · Apr 10 Seriously, can we stop with the ‘fellating privileged writers for including minority characters while they shit on living minorities’ deal.”
“Beetori Sritruslow @talkinghive · Apr 10 #newhugocategories Best White Women Closing Ranks.”
“Beetori Sritruslow @talkinghive · Apr 10 #newhugocategories Best cishet white man praised for writing fictional lesbians while contributing to abuse of living lesbians. :D”
Tell me again how gender feminists are misunderstood workers for anti-oppression rather than the cultish pack of racists they are. Not only that, they’re fucking insane. These nutters see white supremacists in their sleep – even in each other – but somehow their own massive supremacy escapes their equally massive intellects, which may be due to them being pathological liars. Their main claim to fame seems to be counting coup on each other while high on prozac, when they can find time to knock off calling out whitey. You can tell how wise and experienced they are from all the time they spend bragging about hiking the Inca Trail and motorcycling around Bali. Instead they claim PTSD from seeing a comic book cover or being “harassed” on the internet they apparently can’t shut off after publicly saying white people have the brains of moose.
Sure, forget a meritocracy. Just bus in the loudest mules in the herd and they’ll write some really nifty stories about avenging themselves on men and whites. It’s not even racist literature, really – it’s sociopathic literature written by honest-to-god sociopaths with no moral compass or ability to reason.
And people wonder why anyone would want to prank the insane asylum WorldCon has become.
@Andrew: “I don’t care about the left/right or conservative/liberal divide in this context. I care about a community and a world where my LGBT friends and loved ones can feel safe, and a fan community where they feel welcome.
As do I. I want a community where everyone is safe and everyone is welcomed and treated with respect and dignity, without being judged for their skin color, gender or sexual orientation. The more we are the merrier, and diversity and more ways of seeing things makes us richer. Although I am not a feminist, I enjoy some very feminist books like Suzette Haden Elgin’s Native Tongue, which is a powerful story and could not have been written by someone without that perspective, different from mine.
I do not want the Hugos to be given on the basis of the color of writers’ skin, or their sexual orientation, or whether their politics are the right ones. And above all, I do not want fandom to be prey to a totalitarian movement, that intimidates people into compliance with their ideology. The SJWs claim to be in favor of diversity, but the only diversity they want is the one that suits them. People who do not conform or shut up are ostracized or attacked by a mob on internet, shouting charged words at them. That’s not what a healthy community looks like.
Thank goodness for both you Brad and Larry! I just came across this topic only yesterday and have been working to catch up. I guess I have spent all my free time reading SF/F books while being ignorant of the political BS surrounding the genre behind-the-scenes. Count me in for going off script with you!
God speed to you on your deployment.
You want the Hugos to go to the most deserving. That’s why you fight, fight, fight! And Vox Day stacks the deck to nominate himself 2x, and a writer from his publishing house (a very mediocre writer — terrible, in fact) 6x for a Hugo… that goes without any comment by you? The most blatant and obvious corruption in the history of the Hugos goes unremarked upon by you. Instead you blab endlessly about some subtle imaginings that may have happened years ago.
Because you, Brad, are NOT in fact against people stacking the deck. If your buddies are the ones stacking it, you are FOR it. You’re in on it Brad. You are in fact the author of it. You knew what Vox was going to do and you still teamed with him, knowing that doing so would make him more successful — letting him share your “Puppy” name, sharing your fans with him, keeping quiet after it was clear he succeeded in fixing the race. You think that slight deviations on your ballot versus his changes any of that, wipes your slate clean? Are you kidding? You did everything — everything — premeditated. No result was unseen by you in advance. The massive corruption of Vox Day would not have happened but for your support. You knew that when you joined forces. *You openly and with wide-eys joined forces with a corrupt individual.* All while calling yourself “crusader of good… to stamp out corruption.”
Get, real. We’re not idiots, Mr. Crusader.
Because if we can’t differentiate between heated political disagreement and unapologetic raging hate speech, then there’s really no much hope for this discussion at all.
Correct. We can NOT differentiate between the two. Particularly with the examples you have given. What you call hate speech, Wright calls “holding to his moral principles”. What you call denouncing hate speech, I call “advocating internet mobs”. What I call refusing to denounce someone for the amusement of the crowd, others call “protecting the unclean”.
You want Wright to retract his statement, go tell him that. (I suggest you bring something of persuasive evidence with you.) You think he’s an unpleasant person, don’t invite him to tea.
But below is what Wright wrote in response to end of Legends of Korra, in which two women held hands while walking off into the Spirit World together:
Are you referring to Wright’s response to authors who (in his opinion) shoe-horned in a relationship that he found objectionable into a piece of art he had (until that point) enjoyed? (I do find it odd that I only find references to that piece now through a ‘do not link’ link from Jim Hines.) He didn’t approve of a “shippy” turn the plot had taken, and that’s your problem?
If we are coming to the point where an artist can not give his opinion of the art of other people, we are in dire straights indeed.
Please note that I do not wish you to agree with him. You are, in fact, free to wish him to change his opinion. But if you are looking to me to wish Wright to shut up about what he felt in response to that piece of art, you are in the wrong damn place. You are trembling on the edge of denouncing the expression of WrongThink – and especially as you are not engaged in attempting to change his mind on the art, but are instead attempting to convince me in joining with you to have him silenced, shunned, and denied COMPLETELY UNRELATED AWARDS for his opinion, I find this distasteful.
In a genre like SF&F, where we want people to feel free to be able to tell their stories (and where many LGBT friends of mine feel like they have space to do so) Mr. Wright’s words are particularly egregious. He wants to drive such people entirely out of places he occupies– and not just them, but their allies, like myself.
In a genre like SFF, where we want people to tell stories that are not safe, that are not approved, that are not (yet) true, that mock settled truth and build castles in the air, your words are a betrayal of our core beliefs. You assign motivation and intent where you can not demonstrate it, and to refute it, you need only stand still, stand up, and say back to him, sir, I disagree.
He claims to have no hatred in his heart, but if that previous paragraph isn’t seething hatred, then nothing is.
These are your words, not mine.
Among the reasons I’m a writer– besides simply wanting to tell a good story– is that I believe that storytelling helps us have empathy for other people, and see things from other people’s viewpoints.
YES. You might want to give this a try, and engage your imagination to put yourself into Wright’s shoes. It is quite a of a difficult thing, trying on the personal journey and struggle of other people, of working yourself around to seeing out of their eyes.
If you fail, rest assured that most of do, at some point. If it helps, you are not required to succeed, only to try. And you are absolutely not held to enjoying it. But if this pov was easy for you to master, you’d understand The Other better already.
But Mr. Wright does not want to see other people’s viewpoints, or even be reminded of their existence.
Unless you’re in his head, you don’t actually know this. You can infer from his actions, and sometimes one can see quite a lot from that. But let’s say you’re correct. It may well be that his ability to understand – and hence write – other povs is sharply limited. That’s his problem, not yours. Yours is that you don’t want to see his, nor to acknowledge what virtues he does have.
I will not vote to give this man a Hugo award.
If anyone attempts to force you to vote for a nominee you do not want to vote for, you should take action immediately. If Worldcon does not heed your concerns, come talk to me, and I’ll raise a stink. If a person is trying to force you, they very well may be attempting to force other people of weaker will, and it must be investigated.
Oh, wait, you meant this is your personal preference? Oh, very well then. Do as you like. I will note again that the award is for the WORK, and not the MAN, but you would not be the first to mistake the author for something they wrote.
The winners, to some extent, represent the genre and the community to the rest of the world, not just now but in the future as well.
No. I have said this before. You mistake the writing for the person. I have corrected you. Please reconsider continuing to repeat this error, it does not do you credit.
Now, do I think the Hugo is a Best Person award? Of course not, and I never said that. I don’t think politics should enter in it, nor kindness
Then why on earth are you insisting that religion and your definition of hate should be a part of it? You readily admit that other sinful and unpleasant mortal men have produced work worthy of acclaim. You are not making your case for a method of judging men or works, you are declaring your condemnation of another man, for which you have taken Wright to task.
If your intent is to convince me of the lesser quality of Wright’s work, you are going about it in a singularly ham-fisted and incompetent manner. I am not at all convinced of your ability to judge any work separate from your feelings for the author – and even worse, I am not convinced of your intent to attempt the feat.
It strikes me as more than a little odd that all of the people who wish for Vox Day to be condemned have yet to provide actual reasons for said condemnation. I read his blog. I comment on it. I agree with him on a number of issues and disagree with him on a number of others. I’ve discovered, upon actually reading the things he has said, that almost every statement with the pretense of condemning him for (insert issue here) is either misunderstanding his position or misquoting it.
So, for those of you inclined to ask for the resounding condemnations: on what basis?
“someone wants to talk about how privileged “cisgender” people are”
Can you give an example of someone who uses that type or rhetoric who DOESN’t wish to
“silence anyone who may not follow their ideological doctrine”????
“Actually, Andrew, what I said was that no one has an instinctive desire to beat lipstick Lesbians…”
I have several gigs of data on my hard drive that disagree with you.
>So, for those of you inclined to ask for the resounding condemnations: on what basis?
My comment with links to Vox Day’s racist quotes is apparently still awaiting moderation.
James, obviously those quotes from RH are prejudiced garbage. Do you think they represent anyone’s view but her own, and whatever handful of hangers-on she can scrape together at this point?
Gunther – try linktostuff [at] voxwords [dot] com. (Please to include remarks of note in the comment, and why you thought those needing condemnation.)
Bart Trevoric, AKA Clamps, fuck off. Then fuck off again you shitstain on humanity.
keranih: I’m not looking at you to tell Wright anything. He’s free to say what he wants. In fact, I’ll posit that our disagreements doesn’t revolve around Wright at all, but rather, around the nature of the Hugo Awards. So I’ll leave that behind and skip to this part:
>>No. I have said this before. You mistake the writing for the person. I have corrected you. Please reconsider continuing to repeat this error, it does not do you credit.
I think of SF/F fandom as a community, as I suspect, so do you. The community is founded on our mutual love of reading & writing SF/F stories, it’s true, but for many of us, the community is deeper than that. In talking to my LGBT friends, for example, it’s a hugely important place to them– a place where they feel welcome at conventions, where they can work and publish stories and get paid without being discriminated against, and where they can tell their stories to others. It’s a place where my friends of all political stripes and gender identities can hang out, feel welcome, and tell their stories. (Ideally, anyway– and I know you’re going to complain that’s not what I’m doing, but let me finish.)
The Hugo Awards are arguably the most prestigious awards given by our community. They’re also one of the most visible spotlights of that community to the rest of the world. And when the Hugo is awarded to a story, it’s not the story that gets up on stage to applause and gives a speech livestreamed to the world, and it’s not the story who reaps the benefit of increased publicity and sales (that benefit is hard to precisely quantify, I grant you)– it’s the author.
If it were writing an Amazon review or critiquing a story for a website, I could look past the author and judge the work. But for the Hugos? I’m sorry. I can’t do it, because of the extra-bright spotlight the author gets (and I think it is the author, not the work). It’s a community which I’m happy, even proud, to have people I disagree with take part in (believe it or not). But I will not vote for someone who actively rants and raves against the presence of people I love, because if such a person wins a Hugo, the SF&F community will feel much less welcoming to them. And it’s one thing to have a heated disagreement with someone over what they believe (as we’re doing right now)– it’s another to reject someone for who they are.
You may disagree, and you’re feel free to do so, and vote your conscience. But I absolutely value my friends and family too much to set my own conscience aside. I’m sorry. That’s my line in the sand, and if you think of me as a terrible person/SJW/liberal fascist for that, then so be it.
@ Andrew –
We are at an impasse, then – if you hold that this:
It’s a community which I’m happy, even proud, to have people I disagree with take part in (believe it or not).
can be made to fit with this:
But I will not vote for someone who actively rants and raves against the presence of people I love, because if such a person wins a Hugo, the SF&F community will feel much less welcoming to them.
then you hold to a line I can not abide – which is to advocate for free expression and free association and freedom from rejection for those you approve of – but not for the one who may have no one else to stand with them.
You are, I think, constructing a false dichotomy – either one is safe in body and expression of thought here, or else one may be subject to disapproval. Me, I see a world so large that I am free to be and to speak my thoughts, and others are likewise free to be and to speak their thoughts, including those about me.
I am deeply sorry to be convinced that you see a much smaller world, that does not allow such liberty.
Wow, Gunther. I had no idea you were so out of touch on this issue. RH’s rhetoric represents the default race-gender-privilege philosophy and ideology of the entirety of the SJW community, and I have that in quotes from 100 of the institutionally highest placed figures in core SFF. What the heck do you think this has all been about – how to fund bridge construction – abortion? This is Foucauldian gender smoothing with a sidecar of critical race theory. That’s the whole shebang. Do you have no idea what “the lowest difficulty setting there is” means? You could probably deduce the above just from reading the blogs of Scalzi and Hines over the last 3 years alone, since virtually every player has probably commented at those spots at one time or another and their meaning has been made abundantly clear.
You need to be reading, not commenting.
Give it up. Andrew’s principles are so one-sided they virtually don’t exist. Others have people they love too.
OK, let me go through some VD quotes, which are all linked from the RationalWiki article on him. As requested, I’m providing some explanation for why these quotes are bigoted, although honestly it is pretty weird to have to explicitly state the obvious.
“While the relationship between race and intelligence has not yet been fully understood, there is far more reliable evidence for the existence of such a relationship than there is for many widely-accepted scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, string theory, multiple universes and so forth.”
There is really no evidence for a *genetic* relationship between race and intelligence–read Ned Block’s essay on The Bell Curve for an explanation of why. The only reason to believe that genetics, as opposed to environment, explains the IQ differences between the races is racism. (Note that I am not saying that environment and not genetics explains racial IQ differences, I am saying we don’t know and suggesting that we *do* know it’s genetic is racist.)
“First, there is no such thing as marital rape. Once consent is formally given in public ceremony, it cannot be revoked; the form in which marital consent is revoked is well-established. It is called divorce.”
The dude thinks that husbands have the legal and moral right to force their wives to have sex. This is insanely misogynist.
“Women love education; it’s the actual application they don’t particularly like. Whereas the first thought of a woman who enjoys the idea of painting is to take an art appreciation class, a similarly interested man is more likely to just pick up a paintbrush and paint something – usually a naked woman.”
This is a sexist stereotype.
“Unlike the white males she excoriates, there is no evidence to be found anywhere on the planet that a society of NK Jemisins [Jemisin obviously is black] is capable of building an advanced civilization, or even successfully maintaining one without significant external support from those white males.”
Thinking that black people are incapable of living in civilized ways without white leadership is racist.
>Wow, Gunther. I had no idea you were so out of touch on this issue. RH’s rhetoric represents the default race-gender-privilege philosophy and ideology of the entirety of the SJW community, and I have that in quotes from 100 of the institutionally highest placed figures in core SFF.
A few SJ people, like RH, hate white people. Most do not. I agree with you that she and Scalzi, for example, share some of their political opinions in common, but Scalzi is not prejudiced against white people and RH is.
I didn’t say Scalzi is prejudiced. Many SJWs have adopted this anti-white ideology because they’re easily gulled. He sees white privilege as an accurate reflection of our social landscape. I know who has most promoted that smear and they have no love for whites. It is a question of gullibility, friend. Scalzi says WP is as obvious as “gravity” and yet it can measure nothing nor predict a single thing. This is swampland/Brooklyn Bridge territory. Believe what you will.
But Gunther, blacks are not obviously Jemisin.
Gunther – Rationalwiki? Should I quote the Westboro Baptists in response?
As for the first quote, you don’t understand the difference between “evidence” and “proof.” There is significant evidence for (demographic average) differences in intelligence. There’s no debate whatsoever about the heritability of intelligence, and “race” is heritability on a macro scale. To anyone educated in any fashion with regards to genetics, it would actually be more surprising to find no difference.
In the second quote, it’s only misogynistic if Vox does not also believe the inverse (he does). You may disagree with the conclusion, but it’s not misogyny.
The third quote is a stereotype. Is it still sexist if it is an accurate stereotype? I find this to be about as useful as debating whether women have a higher preference for chocolate than men do.
The forth quote requires insertion of days and assumptions on your part to even possibly be racist. Ergo, it’s not racist.
This is why we reject your assertions. They are baseless. I have qualms about that second quote and the situations that arise when taken too literally, but I do also believe in the marital rights of both men and women (meaning sex). But that concern doesn’t mean I’m going to denounce Vox any more than my belief that Catholicism is highly flawed means I will denounce Wright or my rejection of Mormonism means I will denounce Brad and Larry.
As at least two of them have said: Being men of the right, we can disagree with each other and so socialize (in this case electronically). There is no world where denouncing someone for holding different beliefs leads to a better place.
If you think it’s not obvious that “a society of NK Jemisins” in that quote means “a society of black people,” you are being willfully blind.
Gunther – If you don’t believe that abortion is murder, you are willfully blind.
See? I can do it, too.
I’ve said multiple times that Vox Day and John C. Wright are free to express themselves however they wish. But in my opinion, the right to free expression doesn’t include the right to a Hugo Award. There’s a line between rights and privilege, and we have differing opinions on which side of the line the Hugo Award falls. Good day.
“There’s no debate whatsoever about the heritability of intelligence, and “race” is heritability on a macro scale.”
‘Heritability’ of a trait, in the geneticist’s technical sense, is not the same as genetic determination of that trait. For example, wealth is ‘heritable’ in the same sense as IQ, because we tend to pass down wealth to our genetic descendants. If you read the Block essay I mentioned, he explains this at length.
“In the second quote, it’s only misogynistic if Vox does not also believe the inverse (he does). You may disagree with the conclusion, but it’s not misogyny.”
It is misogyny, because (among many, many other things) it is physically easier for men to rape women than for women to rape men, and hence de-criminalizing marital rape will victimize women much, much more than men.
“The third quote is a stereotype. Is it still sexist if it is an accurate stereotype?”
Beale has no (non-anecdotal) evidence that it is accurate. Nobody has done a study of whether this particular stereotype is accurate. So he believes the stereotype for no good reason, but rather because he wants to believe it, which makes him sexist even if he turns out to be right as a matter of luck.
“The forth quote requires insertion of days and assumptions on your part to even possibly be racist. Ergo, it’s not racist.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “days and assumptions.”
Andrew – So, do you find the inverse position to also be acceptable?
s1al, what do you think “a society of Jemisins” means in that sentence, if not “a society of black people”?
@ Gunther –
Still no links, but I’ve seen all these in place at VD’s site when I was tracking down what he actually said.
Vox’s statement regarding the evidence showing intelligence is heritable and unevenly distributed across human populations is correct. Presenting this true statement as racist makes no more sense than stating it is sexist to hold that height is uneven between the sexes.
It is an *uncomfortable* statement, particularly for those who are invested in weighing human worth by intelligence. For those of us who maintain that the mentally retarded, the cripple, and the brain-damaged are as fully human as the rest of us, it forewarns us of obstacles we need to overcome in order to ensure education and work for all.
Vox’s statement regarding legal principles of marital intercourse take the form of advocating a legal interpretation, or possibly supporting initiating legislature to make this principle law. I know of no place where Vox’s statement on this (or anything else) takes the force of law. I am well content that if a judge who did agree with this principle were to be appointed to any court in my state, that I would hear about it from the press long before that judge saw their first case.
I have not actually heard that Vox has been accused of committing any actions where this opinion might be used as a defense. If anyone knows of such actions, I think they should be reported to the police immediately, as it is my read that what he describes is considered a crime in most (but not all) locations.
Vox’s opinion on the relative preferences of the genders for social engagement vs individual achievement is that, an opinion. It is an opinion I have heard shared by many feminists, generally while promoting the greater ability of us women to understand the emotional needs of others, and men’s selfish desires for aclaim and wealth.
As for the exchange between VD and NKJ – to enter into that exchange requires tall boots, a raincoat, goggles, and a good hat, and even then is best left to those with a declared scatology fetish. I will only say that assume either party meant anything they said as other than a vicious hurtful blow against the other is to see a degree of hope in humanity that I have long since lost.
To sum up: Vox is correct but irrelevant; in his legal assertion Vox is in error, morally allowed his error, and is legally irrelevant; Vox expresses an opinion I have heard from feminists and which I find irrelevant to my life no matter who it comes from; and Vox was engaged in a shit-flinging contest with another human, where he found himself well matched.
There is nothing here for me to address. AND EVEN IF THERE WERE I WOULD NOT DISAVOW VOX SIMPLY TO WIN YOUR APPROVAL.
Go forth and find some other goblin to haunt your closet – I feel this one is far too passe and trite.
1) again, evidence vs. proof
2) it wasn’t even a crime prior to the 70’s, and there was almost no complaint of it as an issue amongst married women. You’re going to have to do better than that. I’m not interested in arguing about your personal interpretation of the sentiment rather than the actual definitions. This is, by definition, not misogyny.
3) are you certain?
4) auto correct error. Should say “data”
But still, none of this provides any reason to “denounce” Vox. It’s just arguing over technicalities. That’s not the point.
I am not being willfully blind. My mind does not immediately connect black folks with savages no matter how much you wish to will it otherwise. More importantly, given actual history, the real issue is whether a gender feminist who produces nothing in real world terms can survive in a world that is devoid of such a thing as the West. That has no color dimension. Think for example of who it was which unilaterally ended slavery in the entire hemisphere including Africa and the Middle East. It was what some call the West, and no other. What is a feminist in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? What would have happened to Gandhi or Martin Luther King in Nazi Germany or 1960s Argentina? How do feminists fare in the Middle East? Are they at the forefront of civilizational change? Is the Middle East in any way at that forefront? These are all legitimate questions and observations. There is no need to go straight to your own projections just because someone made a racist postcard in 1930.
I don’t think Bart Trevoric is Clamps. Trolling style feels different. Clamps usually goes for one-sentence potshots and non sequiturs.
I think it means what it says and is conveyed by the connect of the exchange: a group of people with jemisin’s attitudes, behavior, and capabilities (aka: half-savages) would be completely incapable of maintaining civilization at that level. Given that Jemisin had since described herself as “full savage,” one is tempted to agree.
Brad Torgersen, I give you… your fans: People who think there is nothing wrong with the racist, sexist garbage I quoted from VD.
AKA, racists and sexists.
And by the way, I’m not using some watered down “power and privilege” definition of racism. To me, racism is willful prejudice against other people on the basis of their race. And that is what’s on display in this comment thread.
Why not just say a society of black people of which Jemisin is a part? He is critiquing a person who he claims does not “get it.” I don’t think any gender feminist could survive as well in this world without European Western men, nor has any society of women whatsoever led civilizational sea changes. Camille Paglia agrees with that assessment and James Tiptree, Jr. (Alice Sheldon) herself remarked the same thing in her fictional SF stories. Are Sheldon and Paglia racist anti-feminists or pragmatic rationalists who’ve read a history book and have eyes that see that whatever room they’re in is powered top to bottom with technology and societal protections engineered by men?
I see no evidence race is a civilizational issue. China, the Ottoman Empire and various Islamic societies have superseded Europe at various times in history. Stop racializing everything and sticking it in our heads. Those are humans and it is on that level they have failed or succeeded. Christ, when I go visit Mayan pyramids I don’t say “Gee, whatta race.”
Gunther – What race do you think I am, exactly?
I should say, I don’t mean to suggest that Brad’s fans are by and large racist and sexist. Just the couple of people who are defending Vox Day.
@Gunther: i condemn VD’s remarks. Now you could condemn Jemisin’s hatespeech:
And if you are eager to discuss VD, go to his blog. I’m sure he’ll love to get more attention.
Why not go to Day’s site and straight out ask him if black people are inferior and will never build a civilization forever and a day no matter what?
L. Sprague de Camp had his Viagens Interplanetarias stories which surmised Brazil would one day be the leader of the world. I saw no hue and cry of SF fans saying “NO Way, dude.” I found it an interesting idea given Brazil’s size and resources. Why not Africa? Everyone’s taken their turns at being centers of empire and progress. Why, even today I couldn’t make the seated colossi of Ramses II at Abu Simbel no matter how much butter and chainsaws I had.
Gunther – in case I’m one of the ones you claim is “defending” VD, please feel free to address my comments directly.
Please identify the specific things I have factually incorrect, and then the opinions you feel I should share with you.
By the way, proof that the was a manipulation of the Hugo award for political reasons going on (read the comments):
Jemisin links us to Book Riot. Here is their new pre-Magna Carta commenting guidelines, which sound like they were written by Requires Hate herself: “Users can be banned on the first offense for any of the following behaviors: Posting comments that question or denigrate the value of marginalized voices.”
Then the woman who gave the WisCon Guest of Honor speech that makes Capt. Queeg’s breakdown in The Caine Mutiny seem rational calls us “toddlers.” To me a toddler would be someone who thinks they can see the entire world from the internet.
And notice how she writes something no one’s saying about “underrepresented writers couldn’t possibly just be good enough to have earned awards on the merits of their writing.” We have not asserted that. What we have asserted is the ability to read the straight out public declarations by intersectionalists to shoe-horn in the “marginalized” time and time again and then we observed he predictable results.
Then she writes “the possibility of white male writers being nominated or awarded just because they’re white and male never seems to occur to them.” No, in fact it doesn’t. Show me just one quote where a white in SFF recommends books because they’re by a white. Do we talk in code? Are we incapable of knowing our own thoughts – the one’s Jemisin herself can see in our heads? Contrast that lack of quotes with the flood of such quotes by SJWs to read this – it’s PoC – read this – it’s queer – read this – it’s a woman.
And again, who does this woman think is going to be on a ballot pushing against anti-white initiatives in SFF – Arabs? A bunch of black guys?
And violent bigots. Who have video gamer beaten up?
I’ve talked to Mayan farmers in cornfields halfway up the side of a volcano who’re smarter than SFF’s feminists. Cuz that guy knows what goes where, how to not be scared of shadows, that fire is hot, sand dry and water wet. Had I tried to explain Foucaldian gender fakery and the racism of mistaken identity he probably would’ve felt sorry for me and hoped I could someday get the help I need.
That right there makes him a greater intellectual than the entire winning slate of the Hugos and Nebulas last year. Y’know, old school SF writers used to write satirical stories about decadent morons who popped pills to get through the day and who lived in caves connected to the outside world only by the net. But they stopped doing that when we actually became that. I mean, what do you do when the authors themselves are actually IngSoc and Montag’s wife?
What kind of SF would IngSoc and Montag’s wife write?
I think we know the answer.
There’s great SF sitting right in front of you. About a culture which literally fears magazine covers and the startling effects of applause.
WARNING – WARNING – WARNING.
Let’s stop pretending people with some serious mental health issues are just the other side of a political divide.
And guess who says “Yes to all of this” in Jemisin’s comments? Unbelievable. it truly is. That woman has no principles whatsoever, and Jemisin can’t think.
I see you ignored the last bit of my comment to you. I repost it here:
Also, if you’re wanting people to disavow Vox, are you, by any chance, going to any of the sites like Making Light, and listing off some of the quotes May’s collected and asking people there to disavow those people? Or is your desire for such statements just pointed one way, and that way points to Vox?
Now, to address the quotes you have posted. I have no doubt that you see them as racist and sexist. I don’t see them as racist or sexist (with the possible exception of one, which I’ll address in a bit), although I would say they are offensive. But offensive isn’t necessarily sexist or racist. I’ve been the victim of actual sexism several times before (short version of one instance: I had a coworker call my brother to try to get him (my brother) to tell me to change my patch rotation schedule — I do sysadmin work– because he (coworker) didn’t like when I was doing it, and he (coworker) felt that he (brother) could order me to do what he (coworker) wanted, because I wasn’t married and my brother therefore had authority over me, in the opinion of coworker). Compared to the sort of things I’ve seen in person, the quotes you posted above barely ping the radar.
I think this is a case of dilution of definitions. Calling ‘racist’ for too many things that weren’t *actual* racism lead to the all-too-common accusation that one is racist if one didn’t vote for Obama, which is patently ridiculous. At the same job where I had the above situation occur to me, I had a Southerner coworker who called me ‘hon’ one day. It was a common culturalism where he was from, and I wasn’t at all offended, nor do I consider that sexist, but he turned ghostly pale after making the comment, because of how severe the sexual harassment policies were, and apologized profusely to me. I felt bad for him. In our society we’ve gone so far over the edge that a man has to fear for his job if he calls a female coworker ‘hon’.
It’s like what Sinclair says about the Narns in an early Babylon 5 episode: “In order to be free you had to learn to fight. No one questions that. But you’ve overcompensated. You are like abused children who have grown big enough to do the same thing to someone else as if it would somehow balance the scales. It won’t. If you let the anger cloud your judgment, it will destroy you.”
We’ve tipped the scales too far in the quest for equality between the sexes and races and now the terms ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ don’t mean the same thing any more, and are almost useless as definitions. Vox expressing an opinion that marital rape is not a thing is not on the same scale as my anecdote above. It’s offensive, but it’s not sexism. It’s comparing apples and internal combustion engines.
Now, I did say I’d mention that one that I think could be racist, and that was the one in which he’s throwing down with Jemisin. The problem here is that I don’t have enough data from this one quote to determine if Vox is actually racist, or if he’s making a racist statement specifically with the intent to infuriate Jemisin because he’s a button-pusher, and a jerk. And given everything I have heard about that particular argument, I’m not sure I want to wade into it either.
Lastly, I come full circle back to the beginning, until you are willing to be equal in your desire for moderate voices to denounce extremists on both sides, instead of just insisting people around here denounce Vox, your cry has the tinny ring of hypocrisy to it. If you feel it’s okay for Jemisin to say hateful things to Vox, but not the other way around, then your own bias is showing.
Gunter, your analysis of Vox’s statements tells me nothing I didn’t already know about him. It does, however, tell me that you are a shallow reader, that you’re ruled by your emotions, and that you are gravely lacking in analytical ability.
Rationalwiki is largely disinformation designed to generate outrage. Honest commentators would quote this essay, which is easily found by anyone who seeks truth rather than propaganda.
Hey, Brad, in case no one has said it yet: Good luck in the sandbox, man. There are a million cliche sayings that joes have for each other pre-deployment, and if I had the time, I’d write them all down for you, but none of us wants that, I think. So I’ll stick with good luck, keep your head down, and clear your weapon INTO the barrel, not NEXT TO the barrel. Stay safe.
“On the other hand, RH did eventually get what she deserved from a fellow SJW (Laura Mixon). So there is some self-policing going on on the other side of the aisle. Why don’t you reciprocate and do for VD what Mixon did for RH? Write a detailed report on VD’s racism, sexism and homophobia, so there is no room for ambiguity about just how bad this guy is. I think that’s what GRRM was suggesting you do, when he asked what you are going to do about Vox Day.”
The situations aren’t really parallel.
Mixon wasn’t calling out Requires Hate for her ideology, but for specific abusive behaviors- harassment, slander, emotional abuse, threats, bullying. However odious his own beliefs, Day has not- so far as I’m aware, or have ever heard anyone claim- have a similar track record.
Mixon was also, for the most part, protecting her own side. RH’s primary victims mostly seem to be in her and Mixon’s political neighborhood- RH effectiveness as a bully was in large part because the people she abused and the communities she terrorized accepted “social justice” precepts that left them unable to oppose her
And good on Mixon for that, but it’s not something the Sad Puppies folks have reason to be particularly grateful for, or consider a friendly act towards THEM. Mixon wasn’t protecting them. Nor was she attacking RH for her outspoken bigotry, as you suggest Torgersen do regarding Vox Day.. There’s nothing for the Sad Puppies to “reciprocate.”
I actually do find Day loathsome. But the Sad puppies’ detractors are in no position to complain about the SP’s failure to denounce bigots among their own ranks. And frankly, at this point the SP’s have been subjected to so many shameless lies about what racist, sexist ogres they all are that I find it hard to blame them if some of them assume that criticisms of Day from their detractors are just more of the same and tune them out. That’s the price of crying wolf.
While I find Vox Day to be…annoying, at best, folks like Gunther really don’t help their case when they claim that when he makes disparaging remarks about a “society of N.K. Jemisons” that he means “a society of black people.”
Because buddy, you’re the only one hearing that particular dog whistle, which means you need to check your own views on race before you go after Vox.
Because any sane, reasonable person who knows anything about that kerfluffle would know that Vox considers N.K. Jemison to be a terrible human being due, largely, to insults she hurled at him in a public venue and her perceived constant denigration of white men. Whether or not those contentions are true is entirely irrelevant to what their dispute was over. Therefore, when Vox says “a society of N.K. Jemisons” he means “A society of jerks who hide behind their sex and race to avoid being called out for their jerkdom.”
Just stopping back here to point out that, in a recent conversation with John Brown, Vox Day confirmed that in his famous quote, “a society of NK Jemisins” means “a society of black people.”
“Yes, I am claiming that societies are incapable of moving from full primitivism to full civilization within the time frame that primitive African societies have been in contact with what we consider to be civilization. It is a genetic argument. It takes that long to kill off or otherwise suppress the breeding of the excessively violent and short-time preferenced. African-American men are 500 times more likely to possess a gene variant that is linked to violence and aggression than white American men.”
johndbrown ((dot)) com (((slash))) what-vox-day-believes
Uh… no, that isn’t confirmation. Especially as it only applies to a small portion of the African population. Are you really that stunningly ignorant?
Annnnnnd…still not racist, just culturist. I’m pretty sure Vox would apply that same line of reasoning to the Celts hammered down by Rome. I think he’s fallen off the other side of Luther’s horse for focusing so much on the genetics, but I don’t think he’s racist–based on that.
“Racism” would be adding “And I don’t think they will ever pull it off, either.”
As it happens, I had a short conversation with him about that. He’s of the opinion that it would take 500-1000 years for that to happen. Meh.
@ s1al – If it’s just “the warrior gene” (and wow, so many what ifs there) it’s possible we could do retro gene replacements inside 15-20 years. (There are lower hanging fruit, I think (omg, so many harmful genes we could “fix”) and it would have to be voluntary for the parents, or I would not agree to it.)
…and now I’m thinking about “Draka” and re-considering suggesting this might be a good way to go. Might be a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.
And all this lies on the premise that the science is as settled as VD (and others) think it is. Which we-as-science-based-humans have been wrong about before.
I happen to disagree with Vox on timelines, mostly because his is based in historical cultural interaction and social constructs that simply don’t apply in this day and age, though there are other problems. I also place a LOT more emphasis on culture than he does (I think – always hard to tell).
The other issue is that Vox’s stance on the *science* of genetic intelligence is that the evidence of variance between ethnicities is overwhelmingly convincing (I agree) but that the “why” is more complex (again, I agree). There’s also the secondary issue of the contribution of mental development and nutrition (combined, these are demonstrably at least twice as large as the gap in averages).
Mostly it comes down to the inability to dissociate observation (existence of variance) from judgment (importance of variance) and the atheistic association of intelligence and worth. It’s particularly funny to watch Vox insult “utilitarian morality” by implication when atheists (who employ it) trip over themselves saying how horrible he is for that.
On the Enlightenment and 9/11:
“Western civilization is experiencing a post-Enlightenment crisis.” – Yes, and water is wet. Was there anyone who had not noticed?
“for a few decades we (the West) thought we’d finally done it.”
Whoah, speak for yourself, or your tribe, because that was NOT the universal position of everyone in the West. Perhaps YOU were satisfied, perhaps the role of reason seemed fair and balanced to you; I was among those pushing for total victory. Many people in the West, such as myself, saw that Kansas was still teaching Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Some of us saw the election of Reagan as a huge setback for rationality. His rule made some of us richer and some of us poorer, and most people care mainly about their personal economic benefit; but no sane person would have put him in charge of the Apollo project, or the smallpox eradication project, or any endeavor in which hard cold facts trumped feel-good imagery. And yet voters put him in charge of America.
“When the first plane hit the first tower on September 11, 2001, the bubble popped.”
Sure, for those of you who’d blown that bubble around yourselves, those who were turning a blind eye to the rise of the Christian right, a movement just as dedicated to “official truth” as the Communist Party.
“I remember in the wake of 9/11 there seemed to be two camps forming. The first camp devoted itself almost entirely to the question: What did we do to deserve this, and how can we say we’re sorry? The second camp asked: How can we bring the perpetrators to justice, and what can be done to stop them in the future?”
Wow. You live in a very different reality. In the history I remember, there was a large camp saying LET’S GET PAYBACK without knowing or caring what the target might be; and there was a large camp teaching that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. You know the outcome of that. Halliburton got rich, and America spent resources, credibility and young men’s lives making Halliburton rich. And when I say credibility, I mean *credibility as a rational actor*. The USA claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and that Iraq had sponsored 9/11, and launched a war on that basis. The rest of the world saw that America would use flimsy pretexts, *not based in reality*, to invade Iraq. Now, that didn’t make the USA unique, or the worst; the USSR, for example, used a variety of flimsy pretexts to launch a variety of military actions. But you seem OK with the US acting with no more integrity than the USSR. I am not OK with that.
“The first camp focused on self-criticism, and the many post-Enlightenment narratives of inner blame.”
Westboro Baptist is still claiming that 9/11 was America’s punishment for tolerating homosexuality. If you’re going after Westboro, then hurray, go get ’em. Watch out for their law firm.
“The second camp focused on strategy and tactics, to combat the people who sponsored the men who flew the planes, and also to combat the ideology which drove those men to commit murder-suicide.”
That isn’t fact-based reality. The invasion of Iraq did not bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice. You know this, if you actually value reason, if your interest in hard cold facts trumps your desire to feel good about your nation’s actions. Where’s this second camp of which you speak? Where were you, when the USA poured resources into conquering Iraq, resources which could have instead gone into finding and killing Osama bin Laden *right away*, rather than a few Presidential terms later?
“The irony of this whole idea is that it’s simply a postmodernist secular reinvention of the concept of original sin.”
Pretty much, yes. No amount of white guilt is gonna bring Tamir Rice back to life. There are people working on more useful approaches. Those people also call themselves anti-racist, so if you categorically dismiss anyone who uses the “anti-racist” flag, then you’re gonna dismiss both the original-sin crowd, and you’ll also dismiss the people working on outcomes-oriented methods.
“Anyone who goes off-script has to be squashed like a bug.” Yeah, that’s how totalitarianism works. But you write as if that were particularly a tool of the Left. You write that as if the state of Florida allowed its employees to say the words “global warming” out loud. You write that as if Gamergate were not doing its feeble best to squash Anita Sarkeesian like a bug. You write that as if the NSA were not doing its best to squash Snowden like a bug. You write that as if your government did not use “room 101” methods at Gitmo. You write that as if HUAC had moral high ground over Marxism-Stalinism. It just didn’t get as far, before the Left managed to expose it.
If you actually oppose that sort of tactics *as such*, rather than celebrating those tactics on one side and opposing them on the other, then the American Left could use your help. Yeah, I oppose Requires Hate, and I’ve made a public post that could put me somewhere on her list of bugs to squash. But she doesn’t have the resources to get me waterboarded. You know who’s defending waterboarding as a legitimate practice. It’s not the people who’d like to see an end to white cops killing unarmed black boys, the people who’d like rape to be less common on college campuses, the people who’d like evolution taught n science classes as “the single strongest theory so far” rather than as equal to Intelligent Design. (Equal in theology, sure, but let’s get the gorram Church’s hands off the State’s puppet strings.)
“See, thing is, this was like Chick-Fil-A. Remember how that went down?”
I remember right-wing spokesmen saying “Our Tribe is in Danger! Rally to the Totem!” and I remember your tribe rallying to the totem-of-the-week.
“Because this is how free people give the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance — the commissars — a giant middle finger.”
Nope. That’s how the shamans of the Right-Wing Tribe get rich. Take a look at Memories Pizza, and count how many gay weddings are actually demanding catering from Memories Pizza, and how much their refusal to cater gay weddings affects their bottom line. Then look at Glenn Beck’s career, and make reasonable inferences about his bank balance.
“Now is the time for this field — more than any other genre in the literary arts — to demonstrate that it is dangerous. To the commissars. To the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance. To the people who believe the ends justify the means.”
As a leftie in the tradition of George Orwell, I agree with that, 100%. I just wish that the bulk of your essay had anything to do with that last paragraph.
If you don’t agree that the end justifies the means, then why are you in bed with Gamergate, the movement currently on the N-Chan cutting edge of “no tactics are too low for us”?
“Yes, I do have a membership, and I’ve debated what to do. Ultimately, I’ve decided that I will indeed give the stories a fair reading– BUT I will vote for No Award for Vox Day and John C. Wright. I’m sorry. Ultimately, I care about my LGBT friends and loved ones too much to see either of them given that kind of spotlight. I’m happy to vote for people who I disagree with politically, and will likely do so– I think various people who I do disagree with on certain things, including Toni Weisskopf and Edmund Schubert, are more than deserving of a Hugo. I’d happily give Brad or Larry a fair reading if they were on the ballot. But I will not vote for anyone who rages and rants against the very identity and existence of people I love.”
So, to be clear – even if you read and enjoy Mr. Beale’s and Mr. Wright’s work (it is a possibility, after all, however unlikely), you will vote “No Award” because of the authors’ worldviews. Good to see you have no agenda, no sir. That said, you have as much right to cast your ballot as you please as the next person. Just, please, don’t try to convince the rest of the readers here that your vote was for the works on their merit, because your words above say otherwise.
“> In point of fact, apparently because I won’t ritually denounce Vox Day, I am automatically his
> bosom buddy. This is the manipulative calculus of the discussion. Those > you do not revile and
> hate, are automatically your besties. And vice versa. I still can’t > quite grasp that grown adults
> think like this.
That’s certainly not how I think, or what I’ve said. I don’t think you and VD are besties just because you don’t revile him. But some people deserve revulsion, and the fact that you (apparently) don’t revile VD is a little weird.”
In YOUR opinion. Since you feel that he merits revulsion, by all means revile him to your heart’s content. I fail to see why you need to pressure someone else into joining you in the revilement when it’s clear from his words (also quoted above) that he disagrees with you. I assume you DO believe Mr. Wright has as much right to his opinion and to act thereon as you have to yours?
“Brad Torgersen, I give you… your fans: People who think there is nothing wrong with the racist, sexist garbage I quoted from VD.”
Not so. What they have said – reduced to essentials – is that while they may or may not disagree with Vox Day, they support his right to hold his opinion and – heresy of heresies! – to express his opinions. You may as well lump me in with that crowd, then, too; I also believe that he has the right to speak his thoughts and his opinions. By the same token, you have an equal right to speak your thoughts and opinions as indeed you have done here. However, that’s ALL you have. I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
“You want the Hugos to go to the most deserving. That’s why you fight, fight, fight! And Vox Day stacks the deck to nominate himself 2x, and a writer from his publishing house (a very mediocre writer — terrible, in fact) 6x…”
‘Mediocre’ is an opinion, not a fact. I haven’t read this other writer’s work that I know of – it would help if you provided a name – so I can’t can’t say whether I think it’s good, bad or indifferent. Regardless, though – what I think of it would be my OPINION, just as your assessment of ‘mediocre’ is YOUR opinion, nothing less, and nothing more.
“I’ve said multiple times that Vox Day and John C. Wright are free to express themselves however they wish. But in my opinion, the right to free expression doesn’t include the right to a Hugo Award. There’s a line between rights and privilege, and we have differing opinions on which side of the line the Hugo Award falls. Good day.”
No, they do not have a right to a Hugo award. However, the standard for Hugos is not “are the author’s political leanings and personal opinions acceptable to <>?” No. The standard is, “Is this work popular enough that Worldcon members will vote for it sufficiently to outpace other works in the same category?” That’s ALL a Hugo is – and that is not to denigrate them, the works nominated or the authors who wrote those works; it is simply to state the criteria for a Hugo. From the Hugo FAQ (http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/):
“Do I have to have read or seen everything in a category to nominate?
No, you do not have to have viewed everything possible to nominate or to have read all five nominees to vote. If you have seen just one movie or read one story that you think is good enough to deserve a Hugo, you should nominate it. The Hugos work best when as many fans as possible use their own experience to nominate and vote for the things they think are wonderful.”
Right there. NO REQUIREMENT that a work be politically acceptable to any particular group; just that somone read it and liked it. Enough people nominating a work gets it on the ballot. Second item:
“Can I vote for something I have not read/seen?
No, don’t nominate or vote for something you have not read or seen, and don’t vote based on reputation — the Hugos are meant to honor your choices and judgments, not the rumor of someone else’s.”
Read that last sentence very carefully. Each of us is a someone who has choices and judgements about a work. Use whatever criteria you like, but that is equally the right of every other person who has at least a supporting membership – to apply the criteria THEY think suitable.
Where can I go to find out who all the authors voted for for President …um, so’s I can totes vote for them completely without bias and based on the merits of their work and…uh… and something…
Comments are closed.