I’ve noticed that some people (who were opposed to the Sad Puppies effort) are actually reading the contents of the Hugo final ballot, and are shocked to discover that a) some of the work really is Hugo-worthy, and b) none of it is the product of bigoted, evil, white, hateful male minds.
Golly, I am pretty sure the point of Sad Puppies 3 was to make the final ballot more inclusive, not less. Didn’t we say that? I’m pretty sure we said that. More, not less. Big tent, not small tent. Nobody can tell anybody they don’t belong. Isn’t that what I personally have been banging my pot about for years now, even before Sad Puppies came along?
Oh, SP3 pointedly criticized affirmative action — which makes demographics paramount over content and quality — but then we’re allowed to criticize tendencies (and political policies) which make what a person looks like, or what a person has between his legs, or who that person likes to sleep with, more important than that person’s skill, talent, drive, integrity, and work ethic. I guess I am old fashioned in that I still take Dr. Martin Luther King’s words to heart, regarding content of character. They are timeless words. Because King clearly understood that for any group to rise above the obstacles placed before it, everything boils down to the unique dignity and quality of the individual.
And that’s what the Hugo award is supposed to be about, right? Isn’t that what the purists have been so concerned with, these past six weeks?
Now, nothing SP3 actually said or did stopped the clownish bum rush (at the beginning of April) to paint everyone and everything attached to Sad Puppies 3, like we were all KKK, Westboro Baptists, and Hitler, rolled into one demonic entity. But then, that specific angle of falsehood said far more about a particular crop of critics, than it did about SP3. Those people knew they were spreading a lie, and they did it deliberately, and they didn’t care. Even when the lie was shown to be a lie, for all the world to see.
I am glad there are readers who are willing to let the works on the ballot do the talking, as opposed to a stupid narrative.
And let’s be clear: the narrative is stupid. That Sad Puppies 3 is sexist, racist, etc. It was stupid when it was concocted. It remains stupid. It was stupid the second Entertainment Weekly stepped on its own tongue, after being spoon-fed an uproariously amateurish and error-festooned hit piece, by parties who have no regard for facts, and who were eager to smear Sad Puppies 3 and everyone associated with it. Those individuals involved in the concoction and dissemination of the narrative are utterly without scruples, and also without spine, in my opinion. But then, cowardice is something I’ve noticed is in no short supply in the field of literary SF/F these days. Just look at how we (in the field) run around in a tizzy trying to be “safe” from ourselves.
Speaking of people demanding “safety,” it’s occurred to me many times lately that the so-called Greatest Generation — born in the Depression, coming of age by defeating Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, standing off with the Stalinist Soviet Union, and putting men on the Moon — wasn’t fantastically concerned with being “safe” in the way the word is used today. In fact, no great and memorable thing was ever accomplished by any civilization that put “safe” at the top of its priority list. Slavery was not ended by men who wanted to be “safe” and neither was Jim Crow. Boat people fleeing communist Vietnam or Cuba did not put “safe” ahead of their desire to be free. It seems to me that the more we think we can trade off liberty, for security, the more Ben Franklin will be proven right: we’ll get neither. So, be “safe” if you feel like it. Just don’t try to be taken seriously; as a grownup. Being a grownup is about principles. And risk. And the weighing of the two. Err too far on the side of avoiding risk, and you will discover that the principle has been forfeited.
On that note, Larry Correia and I both recently sent some signed contracts back to Baen; for our next books. A few of our critics (of SP3) made a lot of dire noise to the effect of, “You’ll never work in this town again!” I think it’s safe to say that Larry and I are thankful to be working with a publisher who correctly understands the balance — principle, vs. risk. As always, it’s a pleasure to be publishing with a company that truly does (in the words of bestseller John Ringo) understand how to find and print a rip-roaring good story. Because that’s what this whole thing is about in the first place. That’s what Science Fiction & Fantasy was always about: the rip-roaring good story. For all definitions of “good” that include, “Keep the audience coming back for more.” Notice I did not say, “Keep the critics happy,” nor did I say, “Please the aesthetes who sit on their thrones of taste-making.”
To repeat myself: bold tales, told boldly. That’s the mission.
Not that I expect this sentiment to be shared by individuals who’ve made it their job to kick out the “wrong” fans for having the “wrong” kind of fun while enjoying the “wrong” sorts of SF/F.
Right now there are two hazy movements working hard to change the Hugo award. They overlap to a certain extent, but their net effect might be the same. The first wants to vote “NO AWARD” on everything that made the 2015 Hugo final ballot the “wrong” way, and the second wants to change the voting rules (for the future) so that the “wrong” people aren’t allowed to participate in the creation of the final ballot, much less vote on the award proper. For these two groups, their final destination may be the submerging of the Hugo and Worldcon altogether — because you can’t run a big tent while actively erecting barriers to entry and participation. People will go elsewhere. Devote time and money to other things. That’s already been true for decades. If the reaction (of Worldcon, to having the actual world come into the tent) is to pitch a fit and kick people to the curb, then I think it’s a prime example of the old adage: be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Worldcon’s relevance — indeed, the relevance of the Hugos — was already tenuous. Sad Puppies has been an attempt to change that. Not everybody thinks it’s been a change in the “right” way. A lot of people are clearly wrapped up in Worldcon being a specific kind of place for a specific sort of person who likes a specific range of things produced by a specific group of individuals. Small tent is, as small tent does.
It’s an art argument. It’s a taste argument. It’s a political argument. And it’s a culture argument.
Sad Puppies 3 looked at the argument and said, “Goose, it’s time to buzz the tower.”
And again, for a field that endlessly writes stories about mavericks who cut against the grain, break the rules, go against tradition, defy authority, push against the status quo, etc., it’s kind of amusing to see so much hand-wringing and apoplexy when someone actually comes along and shakes things up. Especially when the shake-up was conducted 100% in the open, democratically, using a democratic process. There was nothing secret being done. Nothing underhanded. No hoodwinking was engaged in. All of it was above-board. So that the chief source of outrage — when you cut down through all the miles of rhetorical bullshit — seems to be, Sad Puppies 3 is terrible because Sad Puppies 3 was effective.
I think George R. R. Martin is right: if you want to change things in a democracy, you get out the vote. Sad Puppies 3 got out the vote. So much so, we’ve got complainers crying about how it was the “wrong” voters with the “wrong” intentions, etc. Okay, whatever. In a field that produces thousands of books every year, and tens of thousands of stories, how the heck does an author or an artist get any traction with an award? Simple: put the word out, or have buddies and fans who put the word out for you. Up until now, the “right” people were putting the word out, and then Sad Puppies comes, and we’re accused of being the “wrong” people who are putting the word out? Who gets to decide when “putting the word out” is right, or wrong?
Better yet, who gets to decide who the “wrong” and “right” voters are?
Because I can tell you — based on mail — that every time a snob or a purist or an ideological opponent of Sad Puppies 3 has put his or her foot down, about the “wrong” people coming to the table, it’s merely increased interest and activity on the Sad Puppies side. There is a finite number of individuals who want to keep Worldcon and the Hugo “unsullied” by the proles. The number of proles is endless, and the proles have money, and time, and the willingness to put their hand in. Now, perhaps, more than ever before in Worldcon history.
And oh yes, for those who are permanently bent about Vox Day, here’s a bit of news for you, from someone at Abyss & Apex who interviewed the Deviantart artist who donated the Sad Puppies 3 logo:
Q. How did you come up with the concept for the Sad Puppies 3 logo?
A. It was my idea. I’m a friend of a friend of Brad (Torgersen) and I did it on a whim, and donated it. I liked what Sad Puppies stood for: good stories.
Q. So it was not made to order? Not paid for?
A. No, I did it as a volunteer. For free.
Q. Were the three puppy astronauts your idea?
A. You mean the puppies on the logo named Frank, Isaac and Ray? I was thinking of Frank Herbert, Isaac Asimov, and Ray Bradbury. I came up with that. They all wrote good stories, so I thought they were good representatives for Sad Puppies.
Q. Is the logo trademarked?
A. I didn’t trademark it; maybe Brad Torgersen did, but not me.
Q. I notice that the Sad Puppies 3 logo is on display on your site at Deviant Art but the Rabid Puppies logo was not. Did you draw that one, too?
A. Yeah. (pause) With all the controversy, I wish I hadn’t.
Q. You mean about Vox Day?
A. Yeah.
Q. How did you come to draw it?
A. After the Sad Puppies 3 list came out, Vox Day contacted me. Wanted a rush job for a similar logo to Sad Puppies, for Rabid Puppies. Wanted it in 48 hours.
Q. Were you paid for this one?
A. Yeah, he paid.
Again, the pushing of narratives can backfire when the facts come out. I thought the artist did a smashing job on the SP3 logo, and I think the furor over logos (Sad, vs. Rabid) is one of the silliest red herrings in this entire thing. It’s an attempt to paint all Sad Puppies enthusiasts with the Vox Day brush. Something I know some of the Sad Puppies enthusiasts have not appreciated, and it’s certainly not won very many hearts and minds (from the SP side, to the anti-SP side) precisely because this is such an unfair red herring. Leave the red herring arguments at the door. They’re simply side-stepping the core issue.
Because ultimately this isn’t even about Sad Puppies, or what we said, or did not say, or what we did, or did not do.
This is about the Hugo award, and Worldcon, and decades of seeping stagnation, and the ossification of the mindset of the so-called “keepers” of the field’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award.” An award that seems to too often deliberately avoid what’s actually happening in the marketplace, has become the personal toy of a self-selected crop of individuals who are happy to play at being large fish in small fishbowls, and does itself and its legacy a disservice by catering to taste-makers and taste-shapers. Both for reasons related to art, and for reasons related to politics. As I said above, the number of people in this group is finite. The actual fans (small f) are legion.
Sad Puppies 3 is an effort to bring fans (small f) to the table. No matter how much people have bashed it, lied about it, or tried to paint it as something it’s not, Sad Puppies 3 is “open source” and egalitarian. We asked for suggestions in the run-up to the formation of the slate, and we encouraged everyone to buy, read, and participate with an open mind. No expectations. No tests. No rules. We demanded nothing. We threatened nothing.
Certain histrionic people (among SP3’s opponents) have demanded and threatened a great deal.
I am content knowing SP3 never had to badger anybody, to get them to climb aboard. Badgering is for the small tent. SP3 is big tent. We cranked the radio-full blast, put out the ice chests with drinks and food, and said, “Come to the party! Everybody is welcome!”
Brad R. Torgersen 
One person waiting to end Puppy Related Sadness (and eagerly awaiting her voter pack to madly read everything.) Even if it all falls through and the Hugos become lost, I would, as a reader, appreciate a similar list coming out every year. The list itself is doing what the Hugos were supposed to. It says ‘These books are worth reading. They may not be to your taste, but they’re worth reading.
I’ve always found it curious that people who loved it when Malcolm Reynolds said “I aim to misbehave” all got their knickers in a twist when SP/RP actually did it.
It seems that there is being a maverick for effect … and then really, really being a maverick.
Heheheheh… I can’t recall the title right now, but long ago in Asimov’s there was a story about the return of an ancient generation ship. An astronaut was sent to scout it out; and by the end of the story, he realized that this one ship (a BIG ship!) had more people than the entire population of human space. By more than an order of magnitude. And suddenly it wasn’t “How do we assimilate them?” It was “How do THEY assimilate US?”
Baen Books — boldly telling what no tale has told before!
As to the logos: The SP logo is funny. The RP logo, view in context, is even funnier. Does either reflect on the artist? Yeah, they reflect talent. Does getting paid for the RP logo reflect differently on the artist? Yeah, it indicates an artist whose work was recognised as actually having value in the marketplace. Does it mean a damn thing beyond that? Not hardly.
the second wants to change the voting rules (for the future) so that the “wrong” people aren’t allowed to participate in the creation of the final ballot, much less vote on the award proper
Please be specific in your accusation.
If you’re referring to the “SDV-LPE” proposal that’s being hashed out on the Making Light blog, you characterize it unfairly. If the World Science Fiction Society (the body that defines the rules for the Hugo Award) ratifies that proposal, it would be more difficult for any minority of the Worldcon voters to sweep the Hugo ballot by bloc-voting for the same group of candidates. That obstacle would apply to any minority bloc, whether it be a Sad Puppy bloc, a Secret Fandom Cabal bloc, a We Love Sparkly Vampire Novels bloc… whatever. Nothing in that proposal can filter Hugo voters by political allegiance or favorite style of fiction or non-prole-ness or secret handshake.
I am aware of another proposal that would change the voting rules so that instead of each voter choosing up to five works in each category for a final ballot of five nominees in each category, each voter would choose up to four works for a final ballot of six nominees. This proposal, too, has nothing to do with filtering out “wrong” voters.
I have heard people suggest that Hugo voting should be limited to people who are actually attending Worldcon, and I agree that would be a bad idea, but as far as I know that has not yet been formally proposed, and I don’t think it’s very popular, even among people who think the Sad Puppies effort was a bad idea.
Seth Gordon,
Characterize it however you like, no proposals were made before this year’s apoplectic response to SP/RP. And considering most of the comments from people visiting here and other Puppy related sites, you are being more than a little disingenuous.
Point of order – the only change to the Hugo voting procedures actually on the table does not prevent you or anybody else from getting their works on the ballot. The proposal (4 and 6) does prevent you from locking out everybody else’s choices, which (despite your delusions) is what everybody is mad about. The other proposal which looks to make an appearance at Worldcon explicitly does not eliminate slates.
Point of opinion – you may know people who are coming to the table to vote for your slate. I know people who are coming to the table specifically to vote down your slate.
Point of fact – only about 250 people of 1100 nominators voted the slate. Unless “your side” is adding people at a rate 2 or 3 times as fast as “my side” you will still loose.
Point of fact – the existing Hugo process was “open source” and egalitarian. We [the Hugo administration, in this case] asked for suggestions in the run-up … and we encouraged everyone to buy, read, and participate with an open mind. No expectations. No tests. No rules. We demanded nothing. We threatened nothing. But since that open source didn’t produce the results you demand, you scrapped it.
Point of opinion – unless Kratman, Wright and Lou Antonelli really surprise me, I’m voting no award in two categories (novella and best related) because the entries therein are crap.
bassamanco: The SDV-LPE proposal is on the Web. You can read it and evaluate it based on its own merits. (Or you can say “since SJWs are supporting this proposal it must be bad”—but if you say that, are you not turning into the mirror image of someone who says “since Vox Day wants me to vote for this story it must be bad”?)
And considering most of the comments from people visiting here and other Puppy related sites, you are being more than a little disingenuous.
Are you making a negative judgment regarding my character based on the people whom I associate with?
“That’s what Science Fiction & Fantasy was always about: the rip-roaring good story.”
I was commenting on this over at File770, but I thought I’d bring it here. In your earlier post you said that “People got into SF/F in large numbers because of the adventure, the gosh-wow-gee-wiz worldbuilding, the broad-chested heroes and buxom heroines, the laser blasters, the starships zooming at warp speed to save the day, etc.”
I don’t think this claim can be proven easily, and it’s probably a matter of opinion. What I am sure of is that this describes a very small subsection of what SF has historically consisted of. (I certainly didn’t get into SF because of these things.) I would be concerned that your sincere desire to promote one particular branch of SF precludes a much wider literature.
Seth Gordon, I am calling you a liar and hypocrite. I won’t dance around the issue as you seem want to do.
Merkur, as noted here and elsewhere, most of the Puppy-related backlash has been against stories that promote message before story. These are typically boring and preachy with little entertainment value. Our hosts own first novel was more introspective and philosophical in nature (although there were a few scenes of rip-roaring action) than the type of scifi he talks about, but it was still a very entertaining story. And if it was such a small subsection, there wouldn’t be comment after comment here and at other puppy-related sites of people coming back to scifi again after twenty or so years of published crap. Maybe you are in fact the minority here.
I’m confused Chris. You state that the puppies “scrapped” the “existing Hugos process.” How so? The only difference in what the puppies did and what has regularly happened before, is that (1) a certain subgroup did it, (2) they did it openly, and (3) they were wildly successful (well beyond their own expectations, it seemed). All of this was entirely within the rules of the Hugos. How did they scrap the process?
C’mon, HP. You know Gerrib cherry-picks what is convenient for his side, facts be damned.
“Merkur, as noted here and elsewhere, most of the Puppy-related backlash has been against stories that promote message before story. These are typically boring and preachy with little entertainment value.”
But this assumes that folks who are against the puppies somehow prefer things that are “boring and preachy” to things that entertain. One of the few examples of a “bad” winner that Torgersen has mentioned is Ancillary Justice, & it doesn’t seem preachy in the slightest. Do you believe that it swept the awards because everyone who voted for it in the WSFS (the Hugo) , the SFWA (the Nebula) and the committee for the Clarke award chose it because they thought it was boring and preachy?
“I think the furor over logos (Sad, vs. Rabid) is one of the silliest red herrings in this entire thing. It’s an attempt to paint all Sad Puppies enthusiasts with the Vox Day brush.”
But given that the Rabid Puppies demonstrably and consistently outperformed the Sads, shouldn’t we consider the SPs to be the Red Herring in the grand scheme of things?
Seth Gordon, I am calling you a liar and hypocrite. I won’t dance around the issue as you seem want to do.
I don’t know anything about you beyond what you have posted in this thread, so I have no basis for accusing you of lying or hypocrisy. I ask questions to give you a chance to explain your reasoning, not to “dance around the issue”. Of course you don’t have to answer the questions, and you can think whatever you want about my motives; I have no control over that.
@Martin L. Shoemaker “Ker-Plop” by Ted Reynolds
Going To Maine, I never read “Ancillary Justice”, so I cannot give an opinion on it. People online who like books I like (Jim Butcher, Larry Correia, etc.) have painted it as rather mediocre and only gaining praise for its portrayal of gender (or lack thereof). The message behind it (lack of gender) is why it was promoted, not for any actual quality in the writing.
I can say I read the steaming pile that was “If I Were a Dinosaur, My Love” and can say with 100% certainty that if that was indicative of past Hugo nominees, the system was not only broken, but past death into undeath.
Trolls: The “proposed fix” is an excellent idea – to go back to the old system of a covert, pre-ordained slate of nominations. It will certainly spike any future attempt to have nominations actually made by people that make up their own minds.
Re: voting “No Award.” Democracy is a wonderful thing – it allows incestuous, racist, genderist, and elitist prigs to form their own little circle and disassociate from anyone else. Unfortunately (for you), it doesn’t mean we have to pay any attention to you – as you will find out if your temper tantrums succeed in permanently turning the Hugos into just another feel-good exercise in Marxist political correctness.
HP the Puppies “scrapped” the “existing Hugos process” by proposing a specific, narrow slate (to use Torgersen’s words). This slate, unlike anything done since 1953 (which had an entirely different process) locked out 80% of the voters. Anybody who said this has “regularly happened before” is either ignorant or lying. The fact that fandom has been in an uproar for going on two months now should be clear and convincing proof.
Speaking of “You’ll never work in this town again”, here’s something I shared at Larry’s, but I’ll share it here too. Some of the Usual Suspects were on Twitter and started talking about John C Wright and Orson Scott Card:
“Cora Buhlert @CoraBuhlert · 2m2 minutes ago
@shaunduke @eilatan I’m still surprised their editors don’t try to reign them in at least a little.”
They want editors to police their authors. But remember, we’re supposed to be the fascists.
I personally think that first-past-the-post (the system currently used to choose Hugo nominees) is a very very bad system. Lest you suspect that I speak from some liberal bias, I will give an example of where FPTP worked to liberals’ advantage: the recent legislative elections in Alberta, where the (liberal) New Democratic Party got 41% of the popular vote but ended up with 61% of the seats in the provincial legislature. It was able to do this, in part, because each legislative district uses FPTP to choose a winner, and Alberta’s two conservative parties split the vote between them.
Back to the Hugos: I think SDV-LPE would be an improvement over FPTP. I encourage everyone, whatever their opinion on Puppies, to read that proposal and consider it with an open mind.
Chris,
Considering you’ve been an ankle-biter at this site since before the nominations were even dreamed up, I don’t trust you when you call us delusioned that people are only mad about us dominating the nominations. Your own behavior has shown that people are as concerned with who is nominating.
Your proposal sucks, and should be voted down in August, as it takes away voices from the individual voter. Expanding the nominations to 7 per category provides the same effect without punishing the voters.
We worked within the system, and, as opposed to Arthur Chu’s tweets last year about buying memberships to vote down Sad Puppies candidates, have not subverted the integrity of the Hugo voting system. Despite cries of block voting, vote buying, subverting Hugo administrators, etc. brought up by your side, no evidence of any of these have come to light, again, as opposed to Arthur Chu, and even statistical analysis from non-Puppies have ruled out straight block voting. Come with evidence, not rhetoric for once.
Thanks! I was sure the title was “Kerplop”, but good luck trying to do a search for that to confirm it. And I had it in my head that it was Milton Rothman. I completely forgot Ted Reynolds. But that cover and that story have stuck with me.
Chris Gerrib, all the puppies themselves did was suggest a slate. They were by all accounts shocked at how many people took their recommendations and voted. But, again, Worldcon is open to anyone. After attending my first Worldcon in San Antonio, I bought a supporting membership last year and nominated without knowing anything about the puppies. I greatly enjoyed my experience there, but it was painfully obvious Worldcon needs some fresh blood. But it seems what Larry Correia did that was really extraordinary was getting people to actually go out and read the books the Sad Puppies were recommending (the success of the book bombs shows at the very least a lot of people were buying the books).
Going to Maine, people are still free to promote, nominate, and vote for whoever they want. I quite enjoyed Ancillary Justice and nominated it last year, although I didn’t ultimately vote for it. The astounding success of Ancillary Justice I think is a pretty good example of the problem, though. It was a very good book, but I don’t think it was win-every-award good. I doubt it’s a book we will still be talking about years from now.
@Chris Gerrib:
Speaking as onewhose work you’ve dismissed as crap – all I have ever asked for is this:
Read the works. Vote your conscience. In that order.
Thanks for reading. Sorry “The Hot Equations” didn’t work for you; it’s worked for others.
I think the proposal “over there” is an interesting one. I’ve added to the discussion about it, and most people don’t seem to see what to me is a flaw — small, medium, or large, I’m still not sure!. Seth has been taking flack here for no reason.
Brad: “some people (who were opposed to the Sad Puppies effort) are actually reading the contents of the Hugo final ballot, and are shocked to discover that a) some of the work really is Hugo-worthy, and b) none of it is the product of bigoted, evil, white, hateful male minds.”
Who are these people? Where are their reviews? Most of the blogs I’ve read (links from Mike Glyer’s File770) which are reviewing Hugo nominees have found almost all SP stories non-Hugo worthy, and some have thought them downright awful.
“People online who like books I like (Jim Butcher, Larry Correia, etc.) have painted it as rather mediocre and only gaining praise for its portrayal of gender (or lack thereof).”
I can certainly buy that the book wasn’t to some folks’ taste – taste has been at the forefront of a lot of the puppy rhetoric, and T. What I’ve been confused about is whether you think that Hugo, Nebula, and Clarke voters were subverting their taste to vote for this particular book -which seems to be what Torgersen means when he said that the book benefited from “a groundswell of affirmative-action-mindedness”- or if they genuinely enjoyed reading a good story. I mean, it aced three different awards run by three different bodies.
“I can say I read the steaming pile that was “If I Were a Dinosaur, My Love” and can say with 100% certainty that if that was indicative of past Hugo nominees, the system was not only broken, but past death into undeath.”
But Dinosaur didn’t win the Hugo. Reading the comments over at Fie 770, it seems like quite a few voters didn’t think it was sci-fi enough and voted it below No Award, which is how the system should work. (To be clear, I’m not saying that it’s somehow bad if more people want to come in and vote for the Hugos. Heck, expanding the electorate is probably one of the best things to happen during this whole thing. But it’s one thing to say that the voters made a bad nomination or chose poorly, and its another thing to say that the voting system is broken. And would a slate really fix that?) (Although, as mentioned, right now it seems like the slate is fixing it in a Watchman-esque way, because the response to the perceived threat posed by it has been to mobilize the voters.)
@Chris Gerrib:
Wouldn’t it be more consistent with actual events to say that since the egalitarian Hugo process (whose existence you yourself have just asserted) produced a set of results that *you* (you, here, meaning a certain collection of anti-SP folks found over at Making Light) found to be unpalatable, *you* are now proposing changes to the process to make it less egalitarian?
I have followed the discussion on voting changes over at Making Light and it appears that their proposals were actually guided by simulating perceived Sad Puppy voting behavior within the various voting systems and deliberately choosing the system which prevents or minimizes the number of Sad Puppy nominees that result. Say what you want about the Sad Puppies; this is way more dishonest than anything they’ve ever done.
To be a proponent of a “voting” system that is deliberately designed so that the ballots of people who vote in a way that displeases you count for less than the ballots of those who vote in the approved fashion is, quite literally, the opposite of egalitarianism. Anyone who has such a position doesn’t get to use that word to describe it.
I for one intend to look at the Hugo voting rules and vote on any changes, which will be a multi-year affair. And I thank the above commenters for the links.
The proposal is designed to lessen the power of ANY straight slate. SP/RP are simply the slates at hand. The idea is to maximize overall voter satisfaction. There were several treads over there about all this and yes, I followed much of it. There’s nothing nefarious going on.
“Especially when the shake-up was conducted 100% in the open, democratically, using a democratic process.”
This is false.
Most of the Sad Puppies 3 slate selection process was not conducted in the open. You took comments on a blog post, then ignored some of those suggestions in favor of choices that came from somewhere else. Per Larry Correia in posts on his blog, the final slate was prepared in consultation with authors calling themselves the Evil League of Evil (you, Correia, Vox Day, John C. Wright and Sarah Hoyt).
A process isn’t democratic and open if the final say rests with a small number of people you’ve hand-picked to make the choices.
You’ve never answered questions about how the Evil League of Evil created the final slate — where it was discussed, whether there was a vote, and so on.
Since you’re claiming the whole thing was “100% open,” post the links to the public discussions where the Evil League of Evil worked on the slate.
The 4/6 proposal looks worthwhile, and I would have no problem voting for it. The SDV-LPE one looks overly complicated, somewhat exclusionary, and appears designed to produce not the most-liked works for the final ballot but the least objectionable ones instead, and IMHO would have the extremely predictable effect of reducing interest in bothering to nominate at all.
most-liked works for the final ballot but the least objectionable ones instead, well, that *is* what Instant Runoff Voting, the system we use for the actual award, does, so it’s consistent. (I haven’t decided if I like SDV-LPE or not.)
Brad, thank you for all you’re doing, and thanks go out to Larry also, and to Kate the Impaler for the work she’ll be doing next year. I do appreciate you trying to reason with these people, but you dan’t “reason” with SJW’s, because SJW’s are essentially social fascists. And they always lie. Always. Remember that, man! Cheers!
Itavan: “Who are these people? Where are their reviews? Most of the blogs I’ve read (links from Mike Glyer’s File770) which are reviewing Hugo nominees have found almost all SP stories non-Hugo worthy, and some have thought them downright awful.”
I would point out that those reviews should probably be taken with a grain of salt. I’m fairly certain that more than one of them started out with phrases along the lines of “I knew this was going to be bad before I went into it” or “I already know that this is going to be a terrible story, so …” so it should come as no surprise that those reviews didn’t like the work. One could delve further into the substance of each “review” (in the past on other places online—for not-SP related stuff—I’ve pointed out that there is a difference between a review and an opinion piece; most of what you’re referring to count as the latter rather than the former), but I really shouldn’t need to. Would you trust a review of something that started out by saying “I want to hate this?” before it ever starts? I wouldn’t. Not very much, in any case. And that’s where many of the “reviews” I’ve seen fall out of favor with me. If they went in expecting to hate it and looking for any excuse, well then by golly they will. The same can be said of any review/opinion of anything. Go into it looking for reasons to hate it, and you will.
And as many of these reviews have admitted beforehand that this was exactly what they expected, I see no reason not to disbelieve them at their words,
Most of the Sad Puppies 3 slate selection process was not conducted in the open.
On the contrary, the important part of the slate selection process is “These are books I think are good. Read them, and if you like them, consider voting for them.” That part was fully open, and because we have no way to control how individuals vote, it was fully democratic. How individuals come up with books to recommend doesn’t matter. It’s certainly 100% more open than the completely hidden back-room dealmaking that people on both sides have admitted went on in previous years.
But Dinosaur didn’t win the Hugo.
Based on your comments, the fact that it made it as far as it did despite “quite a few voters [not thinking] it was sci-fi enough” means something is amiss. In an open election (like the initial Hugo nomination process), anyone can get onto the ballot. If you were to have a run-off election (not the initial open election) for a major political post, and “Norbert the Dancing Grape” is one of the candidates that make it to the run-off while several prominent serious candidates don’t, something is definitely wrong; it might be fraud, it might be legal abuse of the rules, but something is not right. And Dinosaur did win a Nebula, so there’s something broken in another award as well.
“On the contrary, the important part of the slate selection process is ‘These are books I think are good. Read them, and if you like them, consider voting for them.’”
Your comment has nothing to do with what I posted. You’re talking about what happened after Torgersen published the SP3 slate with all of its final choices.
I’m talking about the process of deciding what works went on that slate.
“Y’all need to stop being concern trolls and whiny bitches and decide whether you want to win that debate or not. Just saying. #GamerGate” – Milo Yiannopoulos
That applies here too. What’s been happening at File 770 is emblematic of getting bogged down in endless pedantry and straw men which has nothing to do with what started Sad Puppies. For example, I have yet to see one SJW accurately describe the objection to Ancillary Justice. Instead they float bullshit no one is saying but themselves. How is it they can understand the objection to AJ but not what that actual objection is? Do words magically transform themselves? The answer is they don’t understand the issue so stop arguing down to their level of ignorance.
SJWs who never heard of Judith Butler are compassionately defending Judith Butler. What does that tell you about the bill of goods the SJWs who are useful idiots have been sold? And yet Foz Meadows, Liz Bourke and Alex MacFarlane swooned as soon as they heard the words “gender pronouns.” They knew exactly what the issue was and reviewed the novel as such – gender abolition – not as space opera. That’s why and how it was promoted and that’s why it swept awards with the help of useful idiots – end of story. Look what happened outside that feminist echo chamber. Andy Weir’s The Martin clobbers AJ 30,000 votes to 3,000 at Goodreads. No Judith Butler no interest. If you don’t know who Judith Butler is then just stop arguing that novel one way or the other.
In short, the SPs arguing at Glyer’s are having their asses handed to them by allowing others to frame arguments no SP ever started in the first place. Having comments deleted that use quotes and are precisely on point only adds to that. Just stop playing. One of the things that motivated SP was sites that delete comments. Don’t go to such sites. If you must, start leaving nothing but nutty SJW Twitter quotes without comment. That will make the point more elegantly than anything else. 500 of those will speak pretty loudly, and it’s not like they’re hard to find. Some of these past Hugo and Campbell nominees do nothing but provide insane quotes on a daily basis.
There is no reason to argue with people who are either uninformed or too stupid to understand their own hate speech is actually just that – hate speech – or others who are naively defending that. When it suits these morons they suddenly swallow all their bullshit about “cis normatives” and “non-binary” and pretend it’s all about some other thing nobody can quite figure out.
The other thing to do is stop arguing this WorldCon thing is part of a long term trend – it’s not. Trying to document this using facts that go back further than 2 or 3 years is pointless and destroys the core issue. If this was just about “liberal” SFF SP would’ve happened years ago. Mamatas’ challenge was no challenge at all.
And who gives a shit about the voting procedures? Is that going to address morons never shutting up about oppressive straight white men who don’t exist and the resultant affirmative action diversity hires? What kind of liars promote work by nothing more than skin and sex all year and then when those works get nominated pretend that promotion never happened? On top of that SJWs then have the nerve to pretend SPs are simply against that “accidental” diversity because we’re men’s right’s activists and homophobic racists. Wrong. We’re against 100 million white men and 3.5 billion men being used by paranoics as red herrings as an excuse to promote race and sex by fuck racist gender feminists rather than art.
People who can’t bring themselves to use the word “feminist” probably should think twice about what they’re arguing and what made them angry in the first place. I guarantee your enemies want this to be about anything but that. The simple reason for that is the feminist embarrassment of last year’s Twitter meltdown, the nominees, and the subsequent year-long tirade against whites and men. SJWs don’t like to be quoted – so quote them.
All this pedantry about what a “slate” is and voting is just bullshit. Is that what got people angry enough to start SP, or was it “Hurrah! No white men won an award and why is this white man hosting the Hugos and this gay man and black woman are handing out awards and the KKK of Sad Puppies won’t like it cuz they’re women-hating, black-hating homophobes?”
And every time an SJW mentions Vox Day and John Wright ask them what standard they are using. Is it racial and sexual defamation? Fine. Get to work on your own 100 or stop pretending racial and sexual defamation is an issue. Better yet – just stop lying and twisting the dictionary until no one can recognize it. Again, quotes speak volumes, especially if you change a word or two and challenge SJWs as to which side said it. Then we’ll see who’ll disavow who.
For people who claim to be up on 4GW – stop getting suckered into useless skirmishes by morons like Alexandra Erin, Martin Wisse and Nick Mamatas. Erin is WisCon to his core and suddenly swallowed the word “feminism”? Gee, how’d that happen? Same with Martin Wisse: suddenly he’s not talking about “white privilege” and quoting the race-bating Tim Wise? Why not?
As for Steve Davidson pretending he wants a definition of what an “SJW” is, he damn well knows what they are, having been himself swarmed by them over “diversity.” An SJW is a racialist third wave gender feminist and not any other thing. SJW useful idiots who don’t know that doesn’t mean a thing.
As for Gerrib claiming people are angry about a slate, he’s too dumb to realize what he knows. What he knows is that if SP was an initiative to get more women, Poc and gay disabled on the ballot it would’ve been met with cheers. The real reason SJWs are pissed off is because it interrupted their feminist diversity march which will will make SFF what it could’ve been this last 100 years and never was, alas.
“SFF is, alas, dominated by white westerners” – Aliette de Bodard
Frankly, any SP not willing to use the word “feminist” should get used to the idea they are going to lose this fight.
I have followed the discussion on voting changes over at Making Light and it appears that their proposals were actually guided by simulating perceived Sad Puppy voting behavior within the various voting systems and deliberately choosing the system which prevents or minimizes the number of Sad Puppy nominees that result. Say what you want about the Sad Puppies; this is way more dishonest than anything they’ve ever done.
I have no complaint about the kind of fiction favored by the Sad Puppies. (I don’t share their taste, but I don’t think you need a certain kind of taste to deserve a vote in the Hugos.) I do have a complaint about bloc-voting as a tactic. I think this campaign has been bad for the Hugos, and I think it would be bad for the Hugos even if people who shared my politics were doing it.
So the strength of SDV-LPE, to my mind, is that it disadvantages every kind of bloc-voting equally. If it passes, you won’t have to worry about some extreme leftist, five years from now, telling her friends, “hey, let’s imitate the Sad Puppies’ tactics so we can make the Hugo ballot even more left-wing than it’s ever been before.”
By contrast: I know some anti-Puppy folks floated the idea that Worldcon organizers could simply throw out ballots that they deemed to come from bloc-voters. That would have created an anti-democratic cabal with the power to rule over the Hugos, and I’m glad the proposal never got traction.
“And who gives a shit about the voting procedures?”
Those of us who have voted on the Hugos for years and will continue voting on them after the Puppies get bored and find something else to chew on.
“The message behind it (lack of gender) is why it was promoted, not for any actual quality in the writing.”
As someone who’s read most of the Tiptree winners, and whose notion of what is interesting in gender exploration goes way beyond “Oh, look, no genders!” I can assure you that the “message” of Ancillary Justice was a minor reason why I enjoyed it tremendously, would recommend it to others, etc.
The people who care deeply about gender issues in SF/F as core are looking at the Tiptree winners. Ancillary Justice, IIRC, made the longlist — that’s all.
“I can say I read the steaming pile that was “If I Were a Dinosaur, My Love” and can say with 100% certainty that if that was indicative of past Hugo nominees, the system was not only broken, but past death into undeath.”
De gustibus non disputandem est. Having seen some of what got nominated this year makes me think the system broke *this* year, certainly.
“Trolls: The “proposed fix” is an excellent idea – to go back to the old system of a covert, pre-ordained slate of nominations. It will certainly spike any future attempt to have nominations actually made by people that make up their own minds.”
I am curious as to how you think that a fix that would reduce slate voting would help a covert slate?
Either the (IIRC) ONEVOTE system or the nominate-4-of-6 look to me like they’d reduce it.
rcade, I’ve read enough of your comments to know that’s just plain bullshit. Where has your concern about initiatives to “de-white” libraries, censor-review men and whites, assemble lists of non-white authors and editors been? The idea that hasn’t led to informal diversity hire slates is foolish; one needs only look at last year’s Hugo nominees to see the total effect. The difference between that and an actual slate is pedantic. On top of that, you’re asking me to believe your outrage and that of all SJWs would be equal had SP been to promote non-whites, women and gays. Only other SJWs are stupid enough to believe your nonsense.
Tell your fem-nuts to find something else to chew on.
“Especially when the shake-up was conducted 100% in the open,”
So who *did* choose the Sad Puppies slate, Brad? What are their names?
If you’re reading Tiptree winners then frankly your ability to discriminate good SF from bad or even understand what a “message” is is suspect. Fish don’t notice the water, but I do notice the water you swim in. I’ve read enough of your comments. Like AJ or not, but stop pretending it was just that good; it’s not. In Conquest Born from 1986 by C.S. Friedman may have been that good, not AJ. Friedman was ignored. So much for the ability to discriminate if you’re not led by the hand to the trough to drink.
So who *did* choose the Sad Puppies slate, Brad? What are their names?
Your comment has nothing to do with what I posted. You’re talking about what happened after Torgersen published the SP3 slate with all of its final choices.
Precise details about how Torgersen chose his recommendations don’t matter. That he openly made his recommendations and people chose to democratically vote for them matters.
When I go to vote in a real election, various groups are handing out sample ballots, their slates, in front of the voting place. I can look up who these groups are and know what they stand for. The exact details of what procedures they took to make those recommendations don’t matter. Was it a formal meeting conducted by Robert’s Rules of Order? Who cares!
Having seen some of what got nominated this year makes me think the system broke *this* year, certainly.
Which ones? Why? We’ve gone to great detail as to why we think Dinosaur was a poor nomination, and apparently, what we’ve said has some resonance. We’re listening; make your case.
“If you’re reading Tiptree winners then frankly your ability to discriminate good SF from bad or even understand what a “message” is is suspect.”
You do realize how easy it would be to say “If you’re reading SP/RP slate nominees, then frankly your ability…” etc.?
Indeed; part of the point of Tiptree winners is they’re exploring an explicit thing — so the “message” is part of the story and thematic material, the way you might have, say, a Goddard award for the SF that most interestingly expands & explores rocketry.
So the “message” is often not hidden; it’s foregrounded. Makes it easier to identify.
“Like AJ or not, but stop pretending it was just that good; it’s not. ”
I am curious as to your Objective SF Grading Scale — do please share it with us? *I* found it interesting in a way I have not found other things interesting — not least because it addressed some questions in ways I’d not seen before. I also enjoyed the tension within the story. That you did not, or were not interested in said questions, doesn’t make the book any less good — it makes it less interesting to you.
@viktor:
I think there is something quite sinister going on, particularly with this business about voter satisfaction; allow me to explain.
Mathematics does not assign semantic interpretations to its variables. I can call a variable “satisfaction” and set that quantity equal to the distance between the earth and the Moon, the constant quantity 7, or any other formula I care to make up. Whatever formula I assign to the variable “satisfaction” need not have anything whatsoever to do with the subjective happiness of whoever is encompassed by my mathematical model. The datum that is given the name “satisfaction” in their model is literally something that the Making Light cabal can make up at will.
Unfortunately, by calling a variable “satisfaction,” unscrupulous people can *psychologically prime* their audience into thinking that their model is actually capturing something about happiness. Their audience can then be hoodwinked into bootstrapping moral conclusions (which attach to subjective happiness) that come up through the mathematical model. (which refers only to the “satisfaction” variable.)
I’m sad to see that this worked on you, so in the hopes that I can “unprime” you, I’m going to put the Making Light cabal’s notion of “satisfaction” — that is, the one derived from the formulae they make up — in scare quotes where it belongs, and actual satisfaction (as in, roughly speaking, how happy an individual is) outside of scare quotes.
So the obvious problem here is that “satisfaction” and satisfaction aren’t the same. This is easy to see: certainly if this rule were implemented and a 2017 Sad Puppy voter finds his vote discounted relative to the votes of others because he voted with a bloc, he is going to be dissatisfied with that outcome, yet the formulae favor it. The proposed formulae purport to maximize the net “satisfaction,” and they well may — but they certainly don’t say anything about net satisfaction. Or consider the discussions over at Making Light about which “satisfaction” formula to use. Did they ever ask you whether, e.g., your own satisfaction falls off linearly or exponentially (or at all)? Because they sure as hell didn’t ask me. One would think that if “satisfaction” is to capture satisfaction, this information would be of vital importance.
So “satisfaction” isn’t satisfaction. Then what is it? Well, here’s where it does get sinister. The method that the Making Light cabal used to evaluate these satisfaction formulae was to simulate elections using the different formulae and look at the outcome. They decided in advance which outcomes would be considered “satisfying:” those that closely replicate the 2013 Hugo shortlists given the known data from the 2013 ballot, and those that excluded or reduced the quantity of nominees of a hypothetical collection of Sad Puppy voters added to the simulations. A “satisfaction” function was regarded as good by the Making Light cabal if it answered positively to that criterion.
This isn’t just sinister, it’s diabolical. Because what they’re doing, quite literally, is defining “satisfaction” not to be YOUR satisfaction, but rather THEIR satisfaction. The function that is supposed to model your happiness as a voter was chosen by someone who is not you, based on criteria that were designed entirely for their benefit and not yours, without any reference whatsoever to your opinion.
Now maybe your satisfaction lines up with their “satisfaction”, and so you’re on board with this. I, however, am not. And whatever else we’re going to call this, we sure as hell can’t call it egalitarian. It’s not. It’s a voting system with someone’s opinion built into it by design.
“Les Guérillères is about a war of the sexes, where women ‘engage in bloody, victorious battles using knives, machine guns and rocket launchers’. Moreover, sympathetic males join them in their combat.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Gu%C3%A9rill%C3%A8res
That’s 1969 and by a radical feminist lesbian icon named Monique Wittig. How’s that for innovation, irony and stupidity all wrapped up in a bundle. Joanna Russ writes The Female Man a year later.
But regular SF had been doing the same thing. The difference is they explored gender ideas in a humanistic framework, like all classic SF, rather than that of some nutty ideologues with a bone to pick.
“Wittig argues against the perceived natural category of women in favor of social theory, claiming that the label of ‘woman’ merely perpetuates the myth that femininity and womanhood are natural, unchanging, and definable. To ascribe to the natural distinction between man and woman is to submit women to a life of servitude as the Other, perpetually seen in relation to man rather than as autonomous human beings.” – Wikipedia
Here’s your gender pronouns:
“Wittig argues that ‘it is quite possible for a work of literature to operate as a war machine,’ even ‘a perfect war machine.’ The main strategy of this war is for women, lesbians, and gay men—all of whom have been particularized through an identification with ‘sex’ – to preempt the position of the speaking subject and its invocation of the universal point of view… Above all, literary works offer Wittig the occasion to experiment with pronouns that within systems of compulsory meaning conflate the masculine with the universal and invariably particularize the feminine. In Les Guérillères, she seeks to eliminate any he-they (il-ils) conjunctions, indeed, any ‘he’ (il), and to offer elles as standing for the general, the universal. ”The goal of this approach,’ she writes, ‘is not to feminize the world but to make the categories of sex obsolete in language.'” – Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, 1990.
Voila!
“You may not know the rules but the rules know you” – Anonymous
“Which ones? Why? We’ve gone to great detail as to why we think Dinosaur was a poor nomination, and apparently, what we’ve said has some resonance. We’re listening; make your case.”
The *best* of the John C. Wright stories read like a bad mishmash of Isaac Asimov and someone trying to write hard-boiled fiction. It’s a good thing “Yes, Virginia” was ruled ineligible, because it was sufficiently heavy-handed as to be an embarassment. Similarly, Larry Correia’s story was…at best “workmanlike” depending on your taste in workmen; had I read it in a paperback anthology of “fiction from the 50s” I would not have been particularly impressed, nor found it particularly memorable.
On another note:
“When I go to vote in a real election, various groups are handing out sample ballots, their slates, in front of the voting place.”
And political parties do arrange themselves in factions, to achieve real power. The Hugos were not, in theory, designed as a measure of political power; we have not, until very recently, seen the same kind of “slates” and ascribing a specific political message (as both Mr. Correia and the RPs have done) to a slate of nominees.
“Precise details about how Torgersen chose his recommendations don’t matter.”
They matter to Torgersen, because he just touted that his effort was “100% in the open, democratically, using a democratic process.” So let’s see that open democracy.
Yeah, well Goddard can’t be compared to morons who assert men stole androgyny away from Mother Nature in 10,000 B.C., can it? Suddenly WisCon is a biologist convention?
I did share a scale with you, or do you not understand what In Conquest Born is? It’s not a dessert topping. Even the completely ignored Palace by Katherine Kerr and Mark Kreighbaum not only has more tension and drama in it than AJ but is a far better written and realized work of SF.
Peter Hamilton understands drama and tension far better than Leckie. His Night’s Dawn novel clocks in at 1.2 million words so it’s far longer than AJ. Having said that, it has more drama and narrative tension than Leckie is capable of.
Virtually anything that Poul Anderson wrote 1960-75 is better than AJ. If Leckie has a The Dying Earth or indeed anything like The Dragon Masters or The Last Castle or even anything Vance ever wrote post-1950 in her she is keeping it a secret.
@Rcade,
Admit it, you and Cat and Chris won’t be content if Brad does show that 100% democracy, and instead will flail about looking in vain for the next new thing you can throw at the Sad Puppies in the hopes of making them disappear. Just as some of you (Cat and Chris in particular) have been trying to do since before the “slate” was even being considered.
How are they going to determine ‘Bloc’ voting, anyway? Are people going to have to submit a tissue sample so someone can determine ‘ideological purity’, or something? Call all votes cast in a particular time period and in a particular order ‘Bloc’? Demand every screenname people use across the Internet so they can ‘check up’ on voters? Check websites for ‘Bloc Lists’?
There are so many ways to game any system that CHORFs can come up with – including ‘4 of 6’, or any other system – that it isn’t even funny. The only one I can’t come up with a 10-minute breaker for is ‘Minimum Number of Worldcon Attending Memberships’ – and IMO, that one would kill Hugos as anything but an ‘Oldpharts Club Award’.
You can’t unscramble eggs, CHORFs, and frankly, you look silly trying to.
rcade, stop arguing pedantry. Start by telling us what created SP, not engaging in mindless arguments that spin in circles. Who cares? Convince us you’re neutral and how you would’ve been just as inflamed by a feminist initiative. Frankly, no one believes anything you say outside your diving bell. “Compared to what?” is the most hated phrase by people like you. Try using principle instead of identity and you might conjure up some credibility. Otherwise get used to being pranked. I honestly don’t care about injuring the voting protocols of some daffy white privilege conference or the KKK for that matter. I care it’s a white privilege conference masquerading as SF. If you think for one minute I have the least concern for a bizarre cult which slams me daily for being born or the useful idiots who back them up you’re mistaken.
“Yeah, well Goddard can’t be compared to morons who assert men stole androgyny away from Mother Nature in 10,000 B.C., can it? Suddenly WisCon is a biologist convention?”
Oh, good grief.
When an award focuses on a specific area, you’d expect books in the area. That was the entire point there. That you choose to drag in your choice of insults in order to dispute the metaphor is irrelevant.
“I did share a scale with you, or do you not understand what In Conquest Born is?”
No, it’s a single book. What I asked you for was, if you want to claim it’s better in anything other than your subjective taste, is for something objective that you can point to. (Hint: I don’t believe there is such a thing that’s universal. Even the basics like “is it more grammatically constructed” can find their exceptions.) Saying “It wasn’t as good as this book” means the next question is “why, and why should I accept your verdict about it?”
So: *why* is it better, since you claim to have certainty about this?
“Virtually anything that Poul Anderson wrote 1960-75 is better than AJ. If Leckie has a The Dying Earth or indeed anything like The Dragon Masters or The Last Castle or even anything Vance ever wrote post-1950 in her she is keeping it a secret.”
So in order to be good, it has to be as good as the Dragon Masters? High bar. A bar that, for example, none of the Puppy nominees I’ve seen have come anywhere close to. Heck — there are multiple-award winners that don’t match that standard.
So, do you have anything other than “I don’t think it’s as good as these books over here?” If not, you’ve got nothing worth listening to.
And political parties do arrange themselves in factions, to achieve real power. The Hugos were not, in theory, designed as a measure of political power; we have not, until very recently, seen the same kind of “slates” and ascribing a specific political message (as both Mr. Correia and the RPs have done) to a slate of nominees.
But not all of those groups are necessarily political in nature beyond their involvement in voting, which is a political act. Environmental, religious and civic groups publish slates. My local newspaper publishes a slate. It doesn’t matter how the Washington Post decides what their slate is, but they’re upfront (i.e. Open) about the fact that it is their recommendations, and I’m free to evaluate their track record and biases and make my own judgement.
Thank you at least for providing brief but substantive criticism of works involved which suggests that you read them. I don’t even disagree with all of it. But I can apply the same level of criticism to other works which have won. I actually like metafiction, so I enjoyed reading Redshirts once, but in no way was it top-notch sci-fi; I’ve read better fanfiction. It is, however, at least Science Fiction or Fantasy, which is more than can be said for If You Were a Dinosaur My Love. Nobody is going to think all the nominees are great every year, but in an open environment, you’d expect different groups to be on the losing end from year to year.
we have not, until very recently, seen the same kind of “slates” and ascribing a specific political message (as both Mr. Correia and the RPs have done) to a slate of nominees.
If you have not, it’s because you’ve missed the forest hidden behind the trees. The whole diversity kick is a political message (or, on a qualitative scale, more of a political message than anything from the Sad or even the Rabid puppies), and worse, we’ve seen it applied to the winners rather than just one set of nominees. I would accept as rational claims that in the old days Sci-fi was dominated by a group of insiders and new, diverse talent needed to be brought in to provide alternate points of view, and to a point, this was a good thing. The problem is you’ve gone from a purportedly old-boys-network centered pool of potential winners to a more superficially diverse but much less ideologically diverse pool of potential winners centered on a new network that’s just as exclusive as the old one was purported to be.
Seth Gordon says that the bloc voting of the Sad Puppies is evil and ruined the Hugos.
But Chris Gerrib says the Sad Puppies are very bad bloc voters: “Point of fact – only about 250 people of 1100 nominators voted the slate. Unless “your side” is adding people at a rate 2 or 3 times as fast as “my side” you will still loose.”
Cat seems to be very, very confused about tall of it except the part that no matter how many times she’s been wrong about what happened, she just knows she hates it forever, she does. Currently, she is apparently imagining that there is something nefarious about Brad producing a list which very few people actually voted on en toto. But where did he get it, where did he get it? HOW did he come up with *that* evil list of badness? Maybe he consorted with a necromancer or found it writ in runes on a tombstone that could only be seen after dancing naked by moonlight, or perhaps he found it in an encoded scroll hidden a pumpkin in his garden and decoded it with a decoder ring found in his cracker jacks.
IT doesn’t matter where it came from, most people obviously voted for the works they liked and not for works they didn’t like, and the real problem is that ‘most people’ this year turned out to be from the unwashed masses who didn’t know the secret handshake for Scalzi’s sexist ‘gentleman’s agreement’ and who had the chutzpah to vote anyway.
“There are so many ways to game any system that CHORFs can come up with – including ‘4 of 6′, or any other system – that it isn’t even funny.”
I’m curious as to how you think you can game the ONEVOTE proposal; but more to the point, the more you look for “how do I game this?” the less honest your voting looks, and the less honest the motives of the people “gaming” the system.
No; we can’t protect the Hugos from, say, RandomFanaticBillionaire handing out supporting membership money to get a book on the ballot (like his self-published story about his dog) — but if we can make it significantly harder, that’s a good thing.
No system is perfect; the best you can do is make it harder for people who want to try and misuse it to do so.
You’re right, I’m shocked at how good some of the entries on the ballot are looking to me now. The “No Award,” in particular. The rest is trash. I have voted “No Award” — not to make a statement — but because it is most worthy of these entries.
Conservatives trying to understand art, let alone choose the best art, is a little like a cat trying to choose the best bone. It’s not your fault. Conservatives simply aren’t cut out for the task. Sci-Fi has to do with imagining the future. Conservatives, by their very nature and definition, are all about taking things slow, or better yet, keeping things exactly the same. Their safe zone. Meanwhile, the future is about change… a lot of change. That is why conservatives can’t understand Sci Fi, and think that all the best Sci Fi — the stories that win awards — is actually the worst. They just can’t grasp it.
Leave it to the liberals next time. Your brains are simply unequipped to make the correct artistic deductions and interpretations. Thank God for “No Award,” so we can clean up your mess.
Standlee doesn’t care about bloc voting. He cares about coddling his cult of cherchez l’homme so we can have more artistic triumphs like this:
BEST NOVEL Ancillary Justice by Ann (“cis white dudes”) Leckie
BEST NOVELLA “Equoid” by Charles (re: Boston Marathon Bombing – “my money is on crazy white guys”) Stross
BEST NOVELETTE “The Lady Astronaut of Mars” by Mary (“only one award went to a white male… #diversityinSFF”) Robinette Kowal
BEST SHORT STORY “The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere” by John Chu
BEST RELATED WORK “We Have Always Fought: Challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative” by Kameron Hurley (A Dribble of Ink)
BEST SEMIPROZINE Lightspeed (No white men reviewed by Sunil Patel) Magazine edited by John Joseph Adams, Rich Horton, and Stefan Rudnicki (No doubt because of their “Women Destroy Science Fiction” Issue)
BEST FANZINE A Dribble of Ink edited by Aidan Moher (No doubt because of Hurley’s piece)
BEST FAN WRITER Kameron (Men erased women from history) Hurley
JOHN W. CAMPBELL AWARD FOR BEST NEW WRITER Sofia (“white supremacy”) Samatar
BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST WHO PAINTS POC Julie Dillon
I can still feel the straight white man paranoia that drove that “slate.”
Steven Schwartz – Do you understand what “specific” means? You have thus far demonstrated an inability to criticize anything except in the absolute broadest terms, terms which could be applied indiscriminately to any work on the list without so much as batting an eye.
When an award focuses on a specific area, you’d expect books in the area. That was the entire point there. That you choose to drag in your choice of insults in order to dispute the metaphor is irrelevant.
I would expect awards based around a sub-genre of science fiction and fantasy to win the general award every once in a while. If the best Goddard prize hard-rocket-sci-fi story wins every couple of years, that’s to be expected; the best sci-fi story has to come from one of the sub genres. If the Goddard goes on to win the Hugo every year, we have to take a look at the bias involved; surely there’s a good time-travel soft sci-fi or a good fantasy story one of these years.
I would not expect the same when the criteria for the minor prize is not related to sci-fi itself. I would not expect the winner of the Pepsi “Best Sci-fi Novel to Advertise a Pepsi Product” award to go on and compete for the Hugo.
“Admit it, you and Cat and Chris won’t be content if Brad does show that 100% democracy …”
I’m interested in Torgersen proving his statement that the process was “100% in the open” and democratic. Why aren’t you?
It seems like the Sad Puppies supporters would enjoy reading the discussions where the Evil League of Evil decided the works that should be on the slate. You are all Hugo voters, just like me. The more information we have on what ended up on the ballot, the better.
“But not all of those groups are necessarily political in nature beyond their involvement in voting, which is a political act.”
Voting for political office is a political act. Voting for, say, an award? It can be a politicized act, and it might be “political” in the sense that almost any act can be viewed as political, but it is not
Environmental, religious and civic groups publish slates. My local newspaper publishes a slate. It doesn’t matter how the Washington Post decides what their slate is, but they’re upfront (i.e. Open) about the fact that it is their recommendations, and I’m free to evaluate their track record and biases and make my own judgement. ”
And these are for explicitly political ends. The Hugo-winning novel doesn’t propose legislation, or the like. 😉
I, for one, do not want to see SF politicized that way.
“Nobody is going to think all the nominees are great every year, but in an open environment, you’d expect different groups to be on the losing end from year to year.”
But we don’t have well-defined “groups”, so it’s very hard to say. I mean, there was a while when you were much better off being a Prometheus Award nominee than a Tiptree Longlist candidate when it came to winning Hugos. Now, I’m not so sure — I haven’t run the numbers.
(It is also worth noting that thinking of this approach carries a certain level of non-overlap. I mean, I’m a Tiptree-Award-reader, MilSF fan, Scots SF fan, etc., etc., etc. I think we all overlap.)
Holy crap, we have Happy Kittens already? And they seem to be laboring under the misconception that fisking requires being mean-spirited. Countering nonsense with facts usually works better. But I suppose if you don’t have facts, a mean spirit will have to do.
I’m curious as to how you think you can game the ONEVOTE proposal; but more to the point, the more you look for “how do I game this?” the less honest your voting looks, and the less honest the motives of the people “gaming” the system.
If you don’t look at how the system can be gamed, you are in for a surprise when someone games the system. “Trust but Verify” is always a good creed. You don’t trust us; are you surprised that we don’t trust you?
@S1AL: “Steven Schwartz – Do you understand what “specific” means? You have thus far demonstrated an inability to criticize anything except in the absolute broadest terms, terms which could be applied indiscriminately to any work on the list without so much as batting an eye.”
I am commenting on the fly, without the works in front of me. (Each of which, notably, is much longer than “If You Were…”) I will happily provide a more detailed critique if you feel you need it; however, my specificity was as great as I’ve seen from the “If You were…” criticism: “It’s not a story”, “It’s all about message”, “It’s simplistic”, etc.)
To give an example, since I remember it: Even though “Yes, Virginia” is off the ballot, it was a nominee.
[Spoiler warning, since some people require them even for criticism]
It was predictable: I knew from the very beginning that the child was going to live in the end, because of the way the story was playing out. I knew from the moment that the Santa was a bit odd that he was going to be St. Nicholas, not Santa.
It was heavy-handed: Some of that ties into “It was predictable”, since it certainly helped with that problem — the repeated descriptions of the “oddities” of Santa, for example, or starting with the “Mother Loses Daughter and Breaks Down on Xmas.”
It was heavily messaged: if you were not interested in Christian theology/theodicy, there was no “story” there — it was a lecture in dialogue form.
Sufficient for you?
Steven,
You should always see how to break a system – so you can see if it should be implemented at all, or to detect if someone else is breaking it.
Saying ‘We tested it once, and it’s fine’ results in Thalidomide Children. Also, Space Shuttle Challenger.
“Standlee doesn’t care about bloc voting.”
Given that he’s said repeatedly he does, and he’s acted with (as far as I can tell) considerable integrity in these matters, I trust his word over yours.
Mr. May then goes on to list a bunch of statements by Hugo winners. If I wanted to (which I do not), I could go on and produce a similar list, of (I suspect) even far less pleasant nature, from the SP/RP slates (especially the RP slate — would you care to disavow, Mr. May?)
Funny — I thought that people had been complaining about people voting against the slate because of who was on it — but Mr. May appears to think it’s fine to complain about what authors say in judging their work.
If the SP/RP slate is about a particular political viewpoint, or opposing a particular political viewpoint, then by the same justification that “what we did was legal”, doing things to oppose said slate that are also by the rules is utterly aboveboard.
I understand metaphors quite well. Goddard is part and parcel of the SF genre, not a “message.” French Queer Theory is a “message” shoe-horned in where it doesn’t belong. Since when is lesbian feminism SF? It’s dragging a weird obsession into an inappropriate space.
SP wants genre, not Judith frickin’ Butler. How hard is that to understand? They are not equal. But the Nebulas was the Tiptrees last year. How hard is that to understand? How hard is it to understand the Nebula-nominated Hild had more lesbian action than SF or F?
How hard is it to understand Swirsky’s laugh-riot had more bigoted and racist feminist race-sex revenge in it than SF or F?
How hard is it to understand Hurley won two Hugo’s and generated a third for feminist whining about men based on a completely unsourced accusation men have schemed to hide women warriors from history?
How hard is this affirmative action remark by Kameron Hurley to understand, or that it was acted upon by Hugo voters:
“I’ll leave you with this parting thought. Here’s the Campbell list this year:
* Wesley Chu
* Max Gladstone
* Ramez Naam
* Sofia Somatar
* Benjanun Sriduangkaew
Welcome to the fucking future.”
Wake up dude. You’re standing on thin air. And fuck that future. Diversity is one thing, hate speech another. SJWs need to stop pretending those “slates” are accidental. They are based on a feminist hatred and phobia of straight white men baked in the institutions of core SFF, including WorldCon.
“Steven,
You should always see how to break a system – so you can see if it should be implemented at all, or to detect if someone else is breaking it.
Saying ‘We tested it once, and it’s fine’ results in Thalidomide Children. Also, Space Shuttle Challenger.”
Oh, I agree. I *want* to see if it can be broken easily. And I agree that I misspoke — and I apologize if people took my statements amiss or imputing inherent bad faith.
However, I do think that if you *want* to game the system, as opposed to preventing said gaming, you’re doing it wrong — while, again, you may not be cheating in letter, you are perverting the spirit of the award to a specific end.
“I would expect awards based around a sub-genre of science fiction and fantasy to win the general award every once in a while. If the best Goddard prize hard-rocket-sci-fi story wins every couple of years, that’s to be expected; the best sci-fi story has to come from one of the sub genres. If the Goddard goes on to win the Hugo every year, we have to take a look at the bias involved; surely there’s a good time-travel soft sci-fi or a good fantasy story one of these years.”
Here’s the thing — the sub-genres may not be big enough in their following to interest people in the general — or the sub-genres may be specialized enough to prevent such a thing.
If the Goddard wins every year, I agree with you — however, there’s no evidence that a Goddard-like award would win (or have won) every year recently. What I submit we’re seeing is people going “But why hasn’t a Goddard winner won in a while?” — and it’s quite possible that the whole *point* of the Goddard was to honor a small subgenre.
For example, only one Tiptree-winning novel has ever even been nominated for a Hugo; part of the reason, in fact, the Tiptree was founded was because of that division.
Had the Puppies created the Canid Award, to increase puppy-related happiness, no one would have complained — instead, we got the different circumstance, of people wondering “Hey, how come the Goddard winner doesn’t get a Hugo now and again?”
“I understand metaphors quite well. Goddard is part and parcel of the SF genre, not a “message.” French Queer Theory is a “message” shoe-horned in where it doesn’t belong. Since when is lesbian feminism SF? It’s dragging a weird obsession into an inappropriate space.”
Since people decided they wanted to write about its possible impact upon the future. You appear to want to draw a very narrow line around SF; I’m not interested in such a small genre, nor are a lot of other people who participate in it.
As for the rest — I’ll leave you to your rantings and your obsessions; they’ve blinded you to what else is going on in the world. We’ve crossed pens on this before, and it’s clear that you’re not listening to what I have to say, so I’ll stick to the people here it’s possible to converse with usefully.
I have noticed that many anti-SP people are all the sudden making confident statements about how the vote for the awards is going to turn out. This naturally causes my antennae go up, kind of like making light announcing that people weren’t going to like the list of nominees a few days before the nominees were announced. It makes me wonder how many of the new members are being paid for by a group of anti-SPs. I am also suspicious that some of these new members may be relatives (possibly dead, as we have seen vote in other elections). This could all be paranoia and they are just simply allowing bravado to make them over confident. It’s just that when I see see them speak with certainty, as a group, about an event that is months off it makes me suspicious.
If the SP/RP slate is about a particular political viewpoint, or opposing a particular political viewpoint, then by the same justification that “what we did was legal”, doing things to oppose said slate that are also by the rules is utterly aboveboard.
Ok, but the whole SP/RP case is that it is retaliating for actions which, while technically by the rules, are against the spirit of the Hugos.
Mr. May’s list of quotes is to illustrate that the people that complain about hateful speech by, say, Vox Day and others on the SP and RP slates are guilty of the same hateful speech, if not worse.
@Rcade,
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways.” And I’ve seen you argue both here and on Larry Correia’s blog enough to know that, again, even if we showed 100% proof, you’d turn a blind eye and demand something else next post. As you’ve done before. Because this 100% stuff is just another weak attempt to disqualify, just like the false uproar over Brad forgetting to notify one or two nominees. Play your gotcha games elsewhere.
I’ll tell you what Mr. Schwartz. As far as I can tell, when it comes to using words like “disavow,” you’re referring to racial and sexual group defamation.
So let’s set a stringent standard that spares no one and favors no one. Here it is:
An obsessive and persistent trait of singling out one of the following groups and characterizing them negatively 100% of the time: men, women, gays, straights, Arabs, Jews, Latino, blacks, whites and Asians.
Let’s keep score Mr. Schwartz. No “punching up” or “privilege” theory. Just equal protection, all Constitutionally like.
I’ve already done the homework and you’re starting out behind by about 50 to 2 but go ahead and pretend the sky is green and full of dolphins and only talk about the 2. Since you’ve done that to death already, let’s talk about disavowing the 50. I have a Campbell nominee who’s done failed this test about 20 times in the last 2 days alone. I also have many Hugo and Nebula nominees.
Why do I sense you won’t like this game when Glyer’s not around to delete quotes? Trouble is, you’d have to both understand and have principle to play, a thing I’ve never seen from an SJW and precisely what makes them SJWs. They are identity addicts. Their moral ethos is skin and sex – that’s it – end of story. That means that in your mind, you literally have no one to disavow, a pattern completely in keeping with your own remarks, and every fuck of an SJW out there.
You ignore your bigots and say I’m not worth listening to? Start talking out the other side of your mouth if you have one. Either start listing them or tell me they don’t exist.
And you’ve forgotten AJ award success was unprecedented in SFF history, so my comparisons are apt.
Steven,
Your agent can’t negotiate a better contract for their authors based on winning Canid awards; that golden rocket from the Worldcon has *mass* at the table. For now. But it’s relevancy is waning; the day is coming – if it hasn’t already occurred – that moves the Hugo to the level that many awards that came later occupy. Only a small percentage of readers care who won the Tiptree award, or the Seiun, or the Nebula – but even neophytes know the Hugo.
“Ok, but the whole SP/RP case is that it is retaliating for actions which, while technically by the rules, are against the spirit of the Hugos.”
Then they should be delighted that steps are being taken to eliminate slate voting, since the allegation (as I understand it) is that there was a hidden slate, that would be dealt with in much the same fashion.
If they are not, it speaks to their motivation.
Furthermore, it seems unwise to retaliate in a fashion that ensures, *if* the other “side” is larger than you are, that you will be defeated by the same tools you created. It’s quite a gamble.
“Mr. May’s list of quotes is to illustrate that the people that complain about hateful speech by, say, Vox Day and others on the SP and RP slates are guilty of the same hateful speech, if not worse.”
I could, if you like, go down the list line by line and demonstrate why Mr. May is taking things out of context or way too seriously — would that be worthwhile effort?
I notice, for example, that the worst he could come up with for Ann Leckie, apparently, was “cis white dudes” — which, as “hateful” speech goes, is pretty darn mild, wouldn’t you say? Or is using language like “cis” enough to qualify as “hateful” to your eyes? (If so, we’ve got quite a large divide to bridge.)
Similarly, writing an essay about erasure from history is hateful speech? I do not consider this anywhere near on a par with, for example, asserting that same-sex marriage advocates are influenced by a supernatural evil power, because there is no possible rational explanation for supporting it. YMMV.
I have, as I’ve stated elsewhere here, read a fair amount of the Hugo-nominated writing — my main objection to which is not the opinions of its authors, but its quality. Heck — I would have *massive* disagreements with, say, GK Chesterton. Doesn’t keep him off my bookshelf. There are authors I’m friends with, where there are subjects we simply don’t discuss — it would start a blazing row. But I buy (and enjoy) their works, because I don’t feel their issues and mine get in the way of their writing
Here’s the thing — the sub-genres may not be big enough in their following to interest people in the general — or the sub-genres may be specialized enough to prevent such a thing.
Then, when a good book wins the Goddard, people that read it should announce, “Here’s a good book you may have missed! I think it’s worthy of a Hugo!” It may even be worth it for prominent people in the community, like popular sci-fi bloggers and authors with fanbases, to compile multiple recommendations of those they’ve read and liked and those their readers like!
For example, only one Tiptree-winning novel has ever even been nominated for a Hugo; part of the reason, in fact, the Tiptree was founded was because of that division.
Would you just roll over and accept someone saying ‘Tiptree winners are never good enough for a Hugo, and should just stay their own little award’?
Yes, they are very certain, aren’t they? Of course, I suspect they aren’t taking the new Hugo voters into account . . .
My rantings and obsessions, Mr. Schwartz? Don’t you mean that my quoting your compadres appears to be ranting and obsessive because the sheer volume and daily frequency is ranty and obsessive? I don’t make quotes up nor pull them from outliers no one’s heard of. These are the most high-profile figures in core SFF. When not, they are passionately supported by them.
Exactly what is obsessive about accurately listing a 100% slate of actual gender feminist obsession from last year’s Nebulas? Did I make up the quote about no “white males”? Is that ME speaking? Who forced Liz Bourke to not review men and what kind of obsession does it take to come to such a pass? Who is it who made Sunil Patel not review white men and how obsessive and even delusional is his thinking to actually believe SFF is a Jim Crow? Who’s obsession belongs to who and who is it who’s been ranting this last 3 years? Don’t kill the messenger. Take the rants and obsessions up with your privilege brigade. They appear to never rest. I am a scribe, not a fucking mental case. Am I startled a virtual KKK has taken over core SFF that thinks they’re the complete opposite? That’s news, brother. Prove me wrong if you can but don’t talk bullshit.
Actually you are interested in such a small genre, Mr. Schwartz. I give you last year’s Hugo and Nebula winners. That’s not diversity or expansive – it’s a lake where one fish ate all the others. So you go ahead and write how people bouncing around a padded cell are speculating about the impact of Andrea Dworkin on the future. It’s already been done. It’s called 1984. People get raided for normal sex. hahahah. Dworkin is Big Brother – or Big Sister. She testified for 30 min. at the Meese commission on pornography. Like Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, she felt men would become juvenile delinquents if they saw one too many chain-mail bikinis. So, make it against the law and then you can raid people. The police would have literally been able to raid people for magazines if Dworkin and other seminal radical feminist colleagues of her working at the same time such as Adrienne Rich, Robin Morgan, Susan Brownmiller, Catherine MacKinnon and Audre Lorde had had their way. That’s stunning Mr. Schwartz, and all the more so in a context of SF literature. Have you noticed Red Sonja is now censored from the SFWA?
And you think SJWs can write perceptive and speculative SF? What a joke. That’s only true if 1984 is a utopian SF novel.
Here’s the list.
1. Brad R. Torgersen.
That’s it.
Brad solicited suggestions. Not commands, suggestions, so he was under no obligation to use them. He solicited suggestions via social media, email, and face-to-face conversations. When he didn’t know a suggested work, he sought opinions from others he knew. If they gave it an endorsement, he checked it out. Then he made his list and suggested others check them out as well.
The obsessive need to find a conspiracy here is kinda creepy.
I looked at, and read, the whole proposal, and here’s my comments.
As an ex-computer specialist (multiple injuries and permanent disabilities/pain caused giving that up), you have done a first class job. There is only one problem. The “Traditional (Big) 5 Publishers all live/work in NYC. That means they all attend pretty much the same parties, know each other, etc. As a result, in an area with 8.5 Million people, you have 1,000 (at maximum), who can “informally agree” that “Author X, of Publisher Y, should win.” At worst it’s 5 agreed on. Giving the “group/slate) 200 to 500 assured votes.
Now, this is fine, and acceptable, as long as it’s understood that employees publishers “block vote.” The problem is that in the “universe” of 312 million other potential voters, a “slate” is nearly impossible. Fen are like herding cats, for “bloc anything.” 🙂
Those screaming about “bloc voting” fail to understand that the “slate” is, and always has been, “here are authors/artists/works to be considered by you (generic) for consideration for Hugo Nominations.” If someone asks me. “What are some good Mil/SF authors to read?” I’ll mention David Weber, Mike Z. Williamson (Note: I’ve known MadMike for almost 23 years, but I also like his writing), an ex(?)-Marine Officer female author whose name escapes me, and John Ringo. If they ask for possible Hugo Nominations (assuming all have books out in the relevant period), I would still give several names. Unless I know their individual tastes. If I do, I’ll say. “I plan to vote for X, but these others are almost as good, IMO.” That was, and is, the intent behind Sad Puppies, as I understood it. Had I become a “supporting member” early enough, I would have voted for the one I thought most deserving. I can’t speak for what anyone else thought/did.
As I said earlier that puts me, and those like me, at a disadvantage. By population, I make up 0.00266 of an NYC “Cabal member’s vote.” That’s a heavy disadvantage. That means 36.67 of me, to offset one of them. (Note: I used population to be as generic as possible. I know of no “count” for actual F&SF fans in the general pop.) So, if there is any “Bloc voting,” going on, it’s the publisher employees doing it. I doubt that they actually decide, “we’ll all vote for X.” It’s more likely they all “like and talk up” X, better than any others. (Peer pressure at it’s finest.) Nevertheless, it’s the best way possible that you’ve come up with. Publishing (traditional)employees will always have an advantage. It’s called, “Small area, where most live/work/play together.” That some don’t think that’s enough, is a sign of their insecurity.
Funny how you used the word “context” as if you understood it, Mr. Schwartz. Hurley’s piece is part of a very large body of daily defamation against men as an entire group that has rountinely emanated from core SFF. If you are unaware of that, don’t blame me. Not only that, it is exactly why she won two Hugos. Are you really that dense?
I can see you’re unaware of the larger context of the Leckie quote. Go look it up. I’m tired of doing your work for you.
Funny how you’ll argue pedantic nonsense all day long but suddenly parsing my words is too much trouble. You struck out on the two you did trouble to mention so you’re better off not doing that anyway.
“Hard as it to believe, somewhere right now, a white, straight male is explaining to a woman or POC (person of color) what they =really= meant.” – Steven Gould, science fiction (SF) author and president of the Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA)
“I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word ‘privilege,’ to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon.” – John Scalzi, SF author, winner of the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, five time nominated, three time winner of the Hugo Award, Nebula Award nominee and president of the SFWA
“SFF is, alas, dominated by white westerners” – Aliette de Bodard, science fiction and fantasy (SFF) author , five-time nominated, two-time winner of the Nebula Award and two-time nominee for the Hugo Award, SFWA member
I’m increasingly less likely to pick up a book if it is another straight white dude story.” – Kate Elliot, Nebula-nominated SFF author and SFWA member
“sounds like something a straight white cis dude does, secure that his position and privilege will always be there.” – Veronica Schanoes, Nebula nominated SFF author and SFWA member
“The law is made by rich, selfish, shitty people – mostly white, mostly men – with cockroaches for hearts. Fuck their ‘rule of law.'” – Saladin Ahmed, Hugo and Nebula Award nominated SFF author and SFWA member
“I’d say most white men should come with TWs (trigger warnings) for unthinking privileged arrogance, but that’s like saying books need TWs for ‘contains words’.” – Rose Fox, SFF editor, SFWA member and Publisher’s Weekly review editor
Multiply those by about a thousand and then go get a dictionary and look up the word “context.” Then just go away and educate yourself. You’re in possession of no facts that make you worth debating.
Man, I’m old enough to remember when Red Sonja was a feminist icon. How things change.
“And I’ve seen you argue both here and on Larry Correia’s blog enough to know that, again, even if we showed 100% proof, you’d turn a blind eye and demand something else next post.”
If that’s what you think I would do, you’re completely wrong.
I’ve only commented on Torgersen or Correia’s blogs a few times, primarily to question something that was written in a blog post. When I got a response back that was pertinent to this controversy, I didn’t ignore it. I shared it with others to provide more context on their campaign.
For instance, I posted this to Correia in a comment on his blog: “I will buy a copy of every novel you’ve written if you can prove that even a single novel/novella/novelette category was stuffed with a secret bloc’s nominees in the past 10 years.”
Correia replied, “Luckily for you, they’re not that stupid, but I won’t miss the sales.”
So I pass that along, because it shows Correia has no proof past Hugo Awards were ever gamed in the fiction categories by social justice warriors or anybody else.
If Torgersen posts links where the Evil League of Evil authors decided what would be on the slate, I’ll gladly share that information on File 770 and elsewhere.
It seems like you’re trying really hard to provide cover for Torgersen not to show that his process was “100% open.” Do you doubt that it was open?
I could, if you like, go down the list line by line and demonstrate why Mr. May is taking things out of context or way too seriously — would that be worthwhile effort?
Sure, but you’d have to grant us the same luxury, something which other people on the SJW / anti-SP side don’t do very often.
YMMV.
Yep. The issue with defending against these accusations is that offense is now in the eye of the offended.
So I pass that along, because it shows Correia has no proof past Hugo Awards were ever gamed in the fiction categories by social justice warriors or anybody else.
And I have no proof that Lee Harvery Oswald killed JFK and that the world wasn’t created 6015 years ago. Proof is hard.
Regarding wcj’s comment above regarding “satisfaction”: If we define “a satisfied Hugo voter” as one who sees at least one of his or her nominees make it onto the final ballot, then relative to the current system, the SDV-LPE system will increase the number of satisfied voters. The current Sad Puppies campaign has created a small number of extremely satisfied voters and a larger number of voters who are not satisfied at all. If you find this an acceptable outcome—and if you would still find it acceptable if, some other year, a different faction of voters were “extremely satisfied” and you ended up in the “not satisfied at all” group—then you should support the status quo.
Regarding James May’s question “Since when is lesbian feminism SF?”: The question “what if the lesbian feminists [or their polar opposites] took over the world?” is as legitimate a topic for SFnal exploration as “what if men could live on Mars?” Indeed, back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a burst of novels (e.g., Sex and the High Command and Five to Twelve), with a pretty clear message along the lines of “if the lesbian feminists took over the world, life would be awful”.
Regarding Civilis’s question on Tiptrees and Hugos: I approve of the purpose behind the Tiptree, but if Tiptree winners started consistently getting Hugo awards, I would say that something had gone wrong: either the people choosing the Tiptree were not being bold enough in their choices, or the Hugo voters were not taking enough non-gender-related criteria into consideration, or the Tiptree had become irrelevant.
Stop tip-toeing around and misrepresenting this issue. No one is saying gender speculation isn’t a legitimate part of SFF. It has been for a half-century and more and always will be. There is nothing which has ever stopped me from enjoying it when it’s presented as principled speculation. Even Francis Stevens had a women-dominated world 100 years ago and I like her quite a bit. I’ve read most everything she’s written. There’s nothing rare about it.
What I’m talking about it is completely different. I’m talking about the idea this has an obsessive centrality to SFF and there is none. Worse than that is the defamation and hostility of this movement. It’s theories about privilege and patriarchy are nothing less than paranoia. It’s a sick, racist, hateful and supremacist ideology that has no place in any healthy literary movement. Reading the non-fiction comments of these women is jaw-dropping. It’s like reading a Stormfront for women.
The current Sad Puppies campaign has created a small number of extremely satisfied voters and a larger number of voters who are not satisfied at all. If you find this an acceptable outcome—and if you would still find it acceptable if, some other year, a different faction of voters were “extremely satisfied” and you ended up in the “not satisfied at all” group—then you should support the status quo.
The Sad Puppies campaign, then, is no different from past years, which had fewer extremely satisfied voters (and fewer voters overall). The Sad Puppies world, which had different groups of satisfied voters two years in a row, is therefore better than previous, which had the same satisfied voters every year. You have to show that your change, which, coincidentally, is seemingly being driven by the people that lost this year but were winning in the pre-Sad Puppies status quo, is better.
Indeed, back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a burst of novels (e.g., Sex and the High Command and Five to Twelve), with a pretty clear message along the lines of “if the lesbian feminists took over the world, life would be awful”.
Ok, then, when is sci-fi exclusionary? When are the Philbert Watson’s of the world allowed to serve as gatekeepers? I’d say he was a troll, but what he’s saying is not much different than the people Mr. May is quoting.
Part of the problem is that a lot of message sci-fi from both sides isn’t really exploring anything, it’s entirely a means to get an emotional jab in at a barely-recognizable caricature of the other side.
Brad:
“Especially when the shake-up was conducted 100% in the open, democratically, using a democratic process. There was nothing secret being done. Nothing underhanded.”
Nope. Works that were never even nominated in the open thread (ie, Juliette Wade’s) made it to your slate. If it was open, where did they come from? Works without *any* recommendations at all (ie the KJA novel) made it onto the slate. If democratic, where did the votes come from? (tally of recommendations: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KsUUULAR4McYiosUfFT1lr9IRnJgYabSuX6qgSEs19s/edit?usp=sharing )
“So I pass that along, because it shows Correia has no proof past Hugo Awards were ever gamed in the fiction categories by social justice warriors or anybody else.”
Listen, start here:
https://twitter.com/talkinghive/with_replies
Read that crazy stuff. Keep following it out to all the people she talks to. If you’re persistent enough you’ll be stunned to see who it is who supports this crazy woman and how many they are. She has a second private Twitter feed which is unfortunately where most of the connection with the mainstream community takes place. But I’ve seen them. They’re there, including for example all three members of the Hugo-nominated Skiffy and Fanty podcast. Reading Cecily Kane’s Twitter feed is an eyeful all by itself. Who do you think she’s voting for? Many of these women publicly say they vote women and PoC and don’t care who knows it. I have the quotes.
Now imagine them all voting. “Nuff said. This will never be some exacting science so stop pretending that’s even possible. Do you live on some cloud where someone will produce ballots? Look at the results. Only a fool would imagine this obsessive social justice warrior movement won’t and hasn’t voted for exactly what it never shuts up about: anti-straight white male initiatives. Why would 5,000 quotes from 150 core SFF editors, Hugo and Nebula nominated authors, org presidents, bloggers and convention panelists even leave that in doubt?
The only way the situation is going to get fixed is for enough of the voters to adopt the philosophy that they’re going to read all the works and vote for the best regardless of politics or ideology. If enough people do that, gaming the system won’t work. If not enough people do that, any system can be gamed.
And that means reserving ‘No Award’ as a last resort option; if No Award shows up in anything other than an extreme anomaly, then something is wrong. If you’re voting No Award because you don’t like the author’s ideology or gender or whatever, you’re doomed to failure, because it will turn it into an ideological popularity contest. If you have any doubt as to whether your view might be biased, place it above No Award.
“This will never be some exacting science so stop pretending that’s even possible.”
Statements like this are the last refuge of the desperate & conspiracy-minded. Especially since Brad has previously stated that he knows about “at least a dozen” prior campaigns for Hugos. If you can know about a dozen campaigns run by comparisons but have no evidence of any of them, well…
“Ok, then, when is sci-fi exclusionary?”
That’s where you come to the lie at the heart this stupid feminist initiative. SFF was never exclusionary in the ideological sense SJWs maintain. Marketing is not ideology. That’s the stupid irony: the only sign of such ideological exclusion and promotion is among SJWs themselves. Find me one quote where someone says “Read this – they’re white/men!” I can find 200 that say “Read this – they’re gay/PoC/women.” A strange oversight for a supremacist racist patriarchy to make. There’s your con game right there.
When Francis Stevens came in 100 years ago she was published. End of story. People liked her work. When C.L. Moore was first published people loved her work. People learned she was a woman within a year or two or her first story in 1933. Heck, she married Henry Kuttner a few years later. She was one of the most loved SFF writers, so was Leigh Brackett. Mary Gnaedinger edited all 83 issues of Famous Fantastic Mysteries on it’s 15 year run. People loved that magazine. It had great Stevens and Finlay covers and interior art.
Alien is one of the most popular SF movie franchises ever, and it stars a woman. That’s 36 years ago. All this crazy nonsense about misogyny is insane. There is not a stick of proof of a concerted tacit push to exclude anyone from SFF. Marketing is not ideology. I can’t be a popular singer in Nigeria. I won’t sue or cry. This is reality.
How old is The Girl from U.N.C.L.E., Our Miss Brooks, Lucy’s many shows? Media is filled with women and always has been. All you have to do is ignore that and pretend something like Western cowboy stories was a women-haters club.
Assuming for the purpose of argument that the non-Puppy Hugo electorate has a large block of New York editors scratching one another’s backs (per Walter Daniels) or a large block of ideologues who never met left-wing propaganda that they didn’t like (per James May), I still am not convinced that this groupthink has the same effect as the Puppy slates. It’s not enough for them all to like the same kind of SF; their opinions would have to converge on the same short list of specific works in order to swing the vote.
But to the extent that non-Puppies are marching in that kind of lockstep, the SDV-LPE algorithm, combined with a more diverse Hugo electorate, will dilute their influence. The real winners in this kind of election would be the works where fans who can’t agree on anything else agree on “X was a great story”.
“Statements like this are the last refuge of the desperate & conspiracy-minded.”
In what world are 5,000 quotes equaling my desperation? It’s an open and shut case. There are no quotes on the other side. Exactly what is my ideology? What’s my agenda? I’ve been called an “internet racist,” “Men’s Rights Activist” and “right wing.” I am none of those. People need to say those things because they need to lie. And the one who called me an MRA deleted an innocuous comment that merely laid out a case for why someone was calling their so-called talk a “paper” they presented at a college which asserted white male comic fandom was a racist male supremacy without footnotes. Where’s the proof of this silly but constant innuendo?
Ask, be deleted, and become an MRA, racist or whatever. Since when are footnotes “Everyone knows”? That’s no case. Where are the quotes that speak to anti-PoC and anti-women? It’s just all bullshit.
And do you really think an SFF author is going to lay out a detailed case of what may be privileged information? The truth is there’s no real world way anyone could convince you. Courtrooms convict on far less evidence than I have. That’s the real world. That’s enough for me. Your own lack of quotes is telling enough. Exactly what are you arguing and from what vantage point?
Others besides Brad have asserted knowledge of such initiatives. They’re not revealing details either. It’s obvious why. Stop pretending that “why” equals lying. Do you really think GRRM is going to lay bare all he knows? Or anyone? Even journalists don’t quote private conversations if it’s understood they’re private. That is much more restrictive with private parties. No one would ever talk to you again plus you’d have to prove it and maybe get sued. Stop being naive and pretending you got us. You got squat.
Mr. Gordon I agree it doesn’t work like a slate in reality. I don’t even object to idea of a cultural consensus. A cultural consensus is what once made the Hugos and Nebulas great. That consensus acted much like a museum curatorship and produced our finest anthologies such as the SF Hall of Fame and The Hugo Winners.
Past that, I don’t even have a problem with liberals or conservatives being on the right or wrong end of that consensus. No one has a moral right to have their politics or even favorite stories represented.
My beef lies entirely with the fact this is a hate movement, and a damned successful one. Whether their initiatives are 30% or 80% successful is not the point. A hate group should be at 0%, or does anyone really want to convince me a David Duke would or should be nominated for awards? We already know that would never happen. So in principle, why is it happening? It’s happening because of this stupid double standard about power privilege. There is quote after quote saying “We can never be racist or sexist because…” And then they let fly. It’s a frickin’ disgrace. The rhetoric common in core SFF the last three years is a disgrace. Who cares about name-calling or personality conflicts? This is an informal hate group.
I read the SDV-LPE proposal, and I like the idea. Basically it gives everyone the same amount of gravy and lets them spread it thin or thick, as they wish.
If the voting rules are changed, I’d suggest doing a test run as side-by-side with the old method for the next two years, so if it proves a worse mess, it can be scrapped in as short order as possible.
@Steven Schwartz – Yes, that work is NOT on the ballot. As such, I am no more interested in debating its merits than I am those of ‘Lock In’. I do believe I also mentioned that I don’t think the work actually qualified as SFF.
Know why worldcon isn’t going to ‘specifically eliminate slates’? because they have no way to determine how many there are, and if they are real. I could go make a dozen ‘slates’ that propose nominations/votes for every ‘in-crowd’ politically correct piece of grey goo out there in just a few hours and eliminate them as well, and they know it.
Whatever constraints they come up with to distinguish a real ‘slate’ from a fake ‘slate’ can be met.
Frankly I distrust anything that comes for the Making Dark and the rest of the crowd. As far as I’m concerned they lost any kind of legitimate voice when they started that stupid media campaign against the puppies and my friends. Now they seem to be determined to come up with complicated voting systems that stink like my second cousin’s cow shed floor. That wasn’t a nice smell and neither is the stupid plan that seems to come from the toads at TOR to ensure they continue to get their annual quota of plastic rocketships. The fact that they are, instead of trying harder to do the right thing and publish and nominate books that people actually read, trying to game the system in their favor says tons about the kind of crap they are pushing. All I can hope is that people no longer support TOR books with their money until the Nelson Haydens applogize to Brad, Larry, Sarah and, yes Vox, not that Vox cares, to say nothing of the sad puppy authors who’s careers the Nelson Haydens and the rest have been trying to destroy.
@Civilis: “Would you just roll over and accept someone saying ‘Tiptree winners are never good enough for a Hugo, and should just stay their own little award’?”
No. But I would also consider it unfair to arrange for only Tiptree longlist candidates to be the only Hugo nomination candidates.
I would also go “Tiptree winners are likely to alienate a percentage of the voting public — because some people will see “message-fic” as inherent in anything that would win a Tiptree — so they’re less likely to win a Hugo, the same way that anything else that really hit a strong nerve with a minority of readers might do; people who think orbital calculations and heat-transfer mechanisms are boring isn’t going to vote for a Goddard winner to win a Hugo, because they’d be bored by it.
See the difference?
Sigh. I admit to a case of SIWOTI syndrome. Hence, a response to James MAy.
“My rantings and obsessions, Mr. Schwartz? Don’t you mean that my quoting your compadres appears to be ranting and obsessive because the sheer volume and daily frequency is ranty and obsessive?”
No, I mean that you bring the same message to everything you write, you ignore actual responses to what you write in favor of repeating your obsessions, etc., etc., and so forth.
“Exactly what is obsessive about accurately listing a 100% slate of actual gender feminist obsession from last year’s Nebulas?”
Oh, that’s not obsessive — that’s just fallacious. First of all, it’s not a “slate” — it’s a list. Show me someone proposing those people as a slate to vote for for political reasons if you want to claim that.
Second: Several of those people used words that apparently you feel are indicative of being a “gender feminist”. By the same “magic word” standard, simpyl using “gender feminist” marks you out. Not exactly helpful for dialogue.
“Take the rants and obsessions up with your privilege brigade.”
I’ll presume you mean that they use the word “privilege”, not that they have it. If you’re going to try and play the “Oh, we white men are so picked on” game, I will simply point and laugh. I mean, heck — you had in your list a white man who made an inaccurate prediction, but a reasonable one, given that domestic terror incidents by white men are more common in the U.S. than such incidents by other people. If that’s “gender feminist obsessiveness”, then your brush is so broad I’m surprised you’re not painting over ships in harbor and entrance buoys.
“Am I startled a virtual KKK has taken over core SFF that thinks they’re the complete opposite?”
Do, please, show me the church-bombings of SF. Or even the cross-burnings. Or are the wills and egos of SF writers so weak they can’t handle a bad review?
“Actually you are interested in such a small genre, Mr. Schwartz. I give you last year’s Hugo and Nebula winners. That’s not diversity or expansive – it’s a lake where one fish ate all the others.”
Let’s see: MilSF. Modern Horror. SF. Various essays. Yeah, looks like a pretty diverse genre to me.
It’s not as if not getting on the ballot stopped Baen from publishing novels. Or that paranormal romance suddenly vanished.
“So you go ahead and write how people bouncing around a padded cell are speculating about the impact of Andrea Dworkin on the future. It’s already been done. It’s called 1984. People get raided for normal sex. hahahah. Dworkin is Big Brother – or Big Sister. She testified for 30 min. at the Meese commission on pornography.”
And, of course, one person is representative of an entire movement. So, say, L. Ron Hubbard may be taken as representative of all science fiction authors.
“And you think SJWs can write perceptive and speculative SF?”
Yes. I’ll stick with The Female Man. And Dhalgren. And Use of Weapons. And Perdido Street Station. And given how broadly you draw your net, I’ll stand with “Repent, Harlequen…” and “The War Hound and the World’s Pain” and Camp Concentration.
@James May: ““I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word ‘privilege,’ to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon.” – John Scalzi, SF author, winner of the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, five time nominated, three time winner of the Hugo Award, Nebula Award nominee and president of the SFWA”
And every time I’ve seen this quote, it’s been around people who react to the word privilege exactly as he described. He nailed it — as the comment section following the post showed.
The fact that you consider it such a slander against you is, I suspect, precisely the point.
@Seth Gordon: “Regarding Civilis’s question on Tiptrees and Hugos: I approve of the purpose behind the Tiptree, but if Tiptree winners started consistently getting Hugo awards, I would say that something had gone wrong: either the people choosing the Tiptree were not being bold enough in their choices, or the Hugo voters were not taking enough non-gender-related criteria into consideration, or the Tiptree had become irrelevant.”
Very well said, sir — very well said.
” If you have any doubt as to whether your view might be biased, place it above No Award.”
I would agree, in part. But I would expand: “If you think your view might be biased enough to make something you think is not Hugo-worthy Hugo-worthy….”
Because I don’t care how much I might hate, say, the author of “Eye Of Argon II: The Squickening”, it isn’t going to be good enough to win a Hugo even if I am biased. 🙂
“Then they should be delighted that steps are being taken to eliminate slate voting, since the allegation (as I understand it) is that there was a hidden slate, that would be dealt with in much the same fashion.”
That presumes, among other things, that the actual intent of the steps being taken matches the stated intent. As has been pointed out, I’m not certain that’s a valid thing to presume.
I don’t see why SP just doesn’t declare itself an anti-defamation, anti-hate speech movement. You not only have the moral high ground, it’s not even a close call.
How many Entertainment Weekly articles, how many racial innuendoes by Arthur Chu and Shaun Duke, how many accusations of using Jim Crow tactics, how many insane anti-white, anti-male Twitter streams, how many SFF is “racist as fuck,” how many no white man reviews, how many boycotts of all-white convention panels, how many Requires Hate, how many racially segregated non-white rooms and dinners, how many calls for not reading cis white men, how many cracks about “white tears” and “de-white”(ing) libraries, how many innuendoes about being unhappy to receive an award from a gay man or black woman, bullshit rape statistics, bullshit gender pie-charts, how many metaphors about white male supremacist homophobic restaurants, how many posts about white privilege, how many cracks about a white Dr. Who, how many insults about white men needing trigger warnings, how much sighing about white Western SF writers, how many racial revenge anthologies, how much bitching about using English, white saviors, how many banned paintings, shrieking at bikini ads, “white dude parades,” how many lies about white-washing European history, about sexism benefitting all men, rape benefitting all men, how many arched eyebrows about a white male Golden Age of SF, before you call these people what they are and tell them to fuck off and anyone who supports them too?
I have my own Mr. Spock’s eyebrows about who should be disavowing whom and right now they’re pointed squarely at WorldCon.
Please someone tell me where there is a mountain of quotes from inside the core SFF community – now or ever – that disparage gays, non-whites and women that could possibly match that SJW torrent of daily filth supported from the highest to the lowest levels of SFF? It’s a disgrace to have to read that stuff. If all that’s social justice then I want nothing to do with it.
” SFF was never exclusionary in the ideological sense SJWs maintain.”
Go look at the political biases of John Y. Campbell. For that matter, go read ‘How To Suppress Women’s Writing” and get back to me.
SFF has certainly been far more exclusionary to women, and to LGBTQ folk, in the past than it is anywhere close to being to men now — unless somehow “exclusionary” means “publishing a majority of the work in the field.”
One year of more women winning Hugos than men does not make a field “exclusionary.”
“Find me one quote where someone says “Read this – they’re white/men!” I can find 200 that say “Read this – they’re gay/PoC/women.” A strange oversight for a supremacist racist patriarchy to make. There’s your con game right there.”
It’s pretty clear, Mr. May, that you don’t understand power. Which is not surprising — see your previous remarks about fish and water.
There’s a reason so many women did (and still do) publish under gender-neutral names or initials only. Because no one *has* to say “Read this! They’re white!” when white is the default assumption, and the overwhelming majority. The (general) absence of active bigotry on the part of the majority does not make for equality. After all, “This story has LGBTQ folk in it, in a non-negative way! It’s message-fic!” is just as much a use of hegemonic power. Let alone the “We can’t publish this, it’s got //” that we used to see quite a bit.
When you’re in control, you don’t need to be blunt about it; the social environment takes care of that. Unless, for example, you honestly believe that only, say, 1 female director in the history of the Oscars has ever been good enough to win Best Director — that women are *that much* worse than men at directing.
Nonsense — they haven’t had the opportunity.
If you go into a bookstore, now, and randomly pick books off the shelves in the SF section, the odds are you’ll end up with a majority white, majority male reading list. So, why not broaden your horizons and read something by someone who might have different experiences, and base their notions on those experiences? Oh, horrors, it’s *racist* to mention race; just go with the default, unmarked state.
The fact that you managed to dredge up a few women — some of whom, I can assure you, were *not* known by readers to be female — in fifty years should tell you something. The fact that a woman starred in *one* SF series of films, again, should tell you something. But you’re too caught up in being the victim to hear.
“@Steven Schwartz – Yes, that work is NOT on the ballot. As such, I am no more interested in debating its merits than I am those of ‘Lock In’. I do believe I also mentioned that I don’t think the work actually qualified as SFF.”
That work is only NOT on the ballot because it was disqualified. It was nominated, and therefore serves as an exampel of the sort of work Puppies wanted to nominate.
So: if you’re going to demand a detailed critique, and then say ‘No, not that work, another one” — tell me, what was so wrong with Ancillary Justice, one of the few other actual *citations* we’ve gotten on “things that shouldn’t have won” instead of this vague “message-fic” or “SJW fic” that’s been floating around?
“That presumes, among other things, that the actual intent of the steps being taken matches the stated intent. As has been pointed out, I’m not certain that’s a valid thing to presume.”
Well, if you can find the problems — and the method is out there for everyone to poke at — please do. This is SOP in the cryptographic world, where an algorithm is put out for people to poke holes in.
If this were some “secret algorithm” that the ML crew were suggesting to the Hugos behind the scenes, it’d be one thing. But it’s being done in the open, and people are being asked to critique. I don’t see how they could be *more* open on the subject — and if what they’re doing isn’t enough to be trusted, what would be?
I’ve read all that semantic and intellectual gibberish before, Mr. Schwartz. It’s all innuendoes, anecdotes and assumptions without a fact to back up a larger trend. And the point isn’t whether Sigourney Weaver was an outlier, but how she was received, which was much the same as Leigh Brackett claims she was received in the SF community around 1940 – with “open arms.” Campbell certainly knew C. L. Moore was a woman and regularly published her in the ’40s. Is it his fault more women didn’t submit?
So SFF started out male. So what? Men couldn’t get together and start a magazine aimed at men? Has Cosmopolitan Magazine been exclusionary towards men since 1965? Marketing maybe? What would happen if Cosmo started featuring hunting and fishing articles? Are they man haters? What’s the story with Cosmo?
Where’s the conspiracy? Is NASCAR a conspiracy? What isn’t a conspiracy? Campbell and the writings of a gay gender feminist endemically hostile towards men is not much of a case over 100 years. Especially since you’re still making the same inane claims.
You’re also not the first feminist to claim my rights to equal protection are me being a victim. Did you have some goofy idea that would shame me? My rights are inalienable, not on a sliding scale some daffy feminist measures on some amorphous privilege “power” scale that can predict exactly nothing. Guess who has to sign up for the draft by law at age 18 to protect my victimhood?
You’ve been given an opportunity to make a case and squandered it. Since I have actual proof I’m being discriminated against and you have nothing, I can make a much better case that you suffer from vague paranoia with zero quotes over 100 years than I do unreasoning victimhood via thousands of quotes over 3 years. A strange thing to say coming from a cult which is expert at portraying itself as a victim at every turn.
Why did Mary Gnaedinger run Famous Fantastic Mysteries and Fantastic Novels from 1939 to 1953? Did she impersonate a man? The editor at Munsey knew Francis Stevens was a woman and that same thing is true of all the cases I know of except James Tiptree, Jr., who played a prank. If woman hatred is the issue rather than marketing, why didn’t these men cut these women off right at the get-go? Am I to believe the amazing coincidence that all editors didn’t hate women but that the readers did? Quotes, Mr. Schwartz. You got squat.
No quotes from 100 years to match the shared ideology of just the 5 winners of the 2014 Nebula alone? How in the world do you square that?
Schwartz – “That work is only NOT on the ballot because it was disqualified. It was nominated, and therefore serves as an exampel of the sort of work Puppies wanted to nominate.”
Rabid Puppies ballot. Brad is Sad Puppies. Given that one of VD’s goals was “relentlessly nominate John C. Wright,” I don’t think that particular nomination had anything to do with the stated goals of SP.
As for Ancillary Justice, I couldn’t get past the first 10 pages of boring exposition. Perhaps the book got much better after that and totally deserved to be on the ballot. But here’s the thing: most of the noise I heard about it was the pronoun “trick,” which is probably why it’s viewed it as message fic, whether deserved or not.
I’ll read the entirety of Sword, boring or not, because I’m going to read the entirety of all the nominated works before I vote on them.
If the long-term shakeout of this is that hundreds or thousands of SF/F readers see the Hugo as a significant award, increasing their personal involvement and reading with an eye towards nomination options, then I can live with a few years of furor and hullabaloo. I think it’s clear that *many* more people care about the Hugo today than they did two months ago. Which is kinda cool.
But if the long-term shakeout is that the field further divides into well-defined camps, voting strategically for party-approved slates, and more importance is placed on “which camp won this round” than “what exceptional writing has there been this year,” then that’ll just suck. It’ll be a big tent, sure, but all it’ll have inside is two elephants grunting at each other for all eternity.
I confess I don’t really care whether people divide into rigid camps of their own democratically-protected desire, or elsewise. I’m just not terribly interested in elephant grunting.
So even if you’ve been more concerned about bringing in new blood than you have been about calcifying the Hugos into a few opposing culture-war combatants, now’s a good time to start thinking about how to keep a reasonable balance between those, hmmm?
I’m not in any camp. I’m a human being. It wasn’t my choice to be granted white privilege and then insulted for it. I didn’t do anything to have Lightspeed censor review white men. I’ve never been a part of a “rape culture”; some weirdoes insisted I am and enrolled me in it. I’ve never stopped racial or sexual diversity by merely existing. Some weirdoes have said my merely existing is an ideology of white male supremacy. I didn’t do anything to have Tor censor review men. I haven’t controlled epic fantasy or how medieval Europe is perceived. I didn’t edit Tolkien nor do I have one single thing to do with him. This is all just bullshit from a hate group. I don’t know squat about any “misogyny.” I don’t control the casting of TV or film; no one does. Some morons think that. What did I do to have some ditzy moron Tweet about no white men winning an award? I don’t represent some imaginary restaurant where white men punch out women gays and non-whites. Some ditzy moron imagines that in her head.
I haven’t done anything to anyone. I am on the receiving end of hate speech and they’re calling it “social justice.” They’re a bunch of fuckers making up a bunch of stupid bullshit.
Schwartz:
““I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded word ‘privilege,’ to which they react like vampires being fed a garlic tart at high noon.” – John Scalzi, SF author, winner of the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, five time nominated, three time winner of the Hugo Award, Nebula Award nominee and president of the SFWA”
Recoiling in disgust is a perfectly appropriate reaction to a complete stranger arogant enough to smugly lecture you on how your own life works for you. I disagree with a lot of what the Sad Puppies have to say, I don’t like a lot of them, and I don’t imagine most of them would like me, but their willingness to stand against that sort of patronizing, dehumaning effrontery from privileged (I have no problem using the word) bullies like Scalzi leaves me with no doubt about which side to root for.
yeah if it wasn’t for my white privilege, I’d probably be a disabled vet living below the poverty line and doing low-paying freelance work in order to make extra money.
oh… wait…
When people talk of Voter Satisfaction, I have to trot out my Hugo Proposal, which basically gives all those voters who were originally shut out of the nominating process the satisfaction of having a say in who the final nominees are. In that respect, I think it’s better than SDV or 4 of 6.
https://drmauser.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/so-you-want-to-fix-the-hugos/
Short form: A two round nominating process. Top 25 from the first round, Then everyone gets to choose the top five from that pool. Then all the folks who are in that 80-90% who never get anything on the ballot have the incentive to stay involved because their second vote every likely WILL have a say in what gets on the ballot.
And it’s Clique-proof as well.
And every time I’ve seen this quote, it’s been around people who react to the word privilege exactly as he described. He nailed it — as the comment section following the post showed.
He didn’t nail it because the privilege he talks about is completely illusory. It’s based on pandering to group identity politics. Pretending that the President of the United States has less power than an Appalachian hill person, because the President is a PoC and the hill person is white, is delusional.
Simultaneously believing that men and women are completely interchangeable while at the same time lamenting that it would be so much better if we had women doing the important jobs currently disproportionately dominated by men (but not the unimportant ones like construction worker) is delusional.
Lamenting the discredited statistic that women make 77% of what men make while ignoring the real statistics disproportionately stacked against men (men have lower life expectancy, receive harsher sentences for the same crimes, are underrepresented in college, have a much higher rate of workplace injuries and fatalities, etc.) is ridiculous.
Scalzi’s “all white men are living life on easy mode” doesn’t pass a laugh test. Reducing people to their superficial group identity is such a poor way to deal with individuals with diverse experiences that I can’t see how anyone seriously can think that way. Ironically, sci-fi has repeatedly examined that, and just about every author that has has ended up portraying it as a dystopia.
If you go into a bookstore, now, and randomly pick books off the shelves in the SF section, the odds are you’ll end up with a majority white, majority male reading list. So, why not broaden your horizons and read something by someone who might have different experiences, and base their notions on those experiences? Oh, horrors, it’s *racist* to mention race; just go with the default, unmarked state.
“My reading list is diverse! It has all kinds of progressives!” is the same as “My music selection is diverse! It has country and western!”. You, at least, have indicated you’ve tried reading outside your own worldview, which is more than I can say for many on your side. Sci-fi stories are stories of ideas, as such the important diversity is the ideological bent of the writer, not the superficial identity. There’s nothing wrong with bringing different authors in who may have different ideas, but in order for change to happen, you still have to reward the good ones, and not the ones that are the most different. But what’s happening is is that it’s gone from bringing new authors in to rewarding new authors just for being different to excluding groups that don’t sufficiently bow down to the worship of superficial diversity.
So I am sure someone has made the same observation before but I haven’t seen it yet… The Mr. Schwartz and Garrib’s of the world are perfectly happy to accept the SJWs meme’s about secret discrimination against women, minority races and LGBTQs due to studies based on outcomes without any causation established what so ever. The SJW’s can’t even collect quotes establishing the mindset of society as a whole towards these supposedly oppressed parties.
Then in this relatively small community, where a pattern of behavior and attitudes has been established by a bible of direct quotes from many prominent members of a community, they are unwilling to accept that there is any bias. Instead they demand 100% proof that a very specific plan was hatched where SWJs clearly established an organized campaign that directly said “don’t vote for conservatives”. Even if we could produced evidence that someone did exactly that the refrain would be “well, they didn’t say that every single year.” If we established that then the refrain would be “well, I have never heard of them, so it didn’t make any difference.”
In short where minimal smoke exists, they will completely believe in systematic discrimination if it fits their politics. Where lots of smoke exists, they will demand absolute proof if it goes against their politics.
Ha, Gerrib heard that the soft serve cream machine was restocked in wardroom so he wandered in from “chasin’ Haitians” and ordered up some mess stewards to get him some. When I need some hotshot 1% banker to lecture me on sci-fi, I will.. well hell, I don’t really need that, now or ever.
Go demand answers somewhere else, go back to writing paper for underperforming loans and have a big bowl of ice cream to sooth your rattled SJW nerves.
This.
“My beef lies entirely with the fact this is a hate movement, and a damned successful one.”
And this.
“I haven’t done anything to anyone. I am on the receiving end of hate speech and they’re calling it “social justice.” They’re a bunch of fuckers making up a bunch of stupid bullshit.”
And this.
“He didn’t nail it because the privilege he talks about is completely illusory.”
Thank god for your patience in collecting this, Jim. FWIW, if this volume of material can’t reach someone like Schwartz, he (and the rest of them) are unreachable. There is no bridging of the divide. There is no reconciliation possible on any terms, because the terms will keep changing. They demand acceptance of the original sin of white male guilt, many having embraced it themselves. Let them. I will not.
James May- Good job.
Crap, screwed up my post at 7:48pm. That’ll learn me to post when insufficiently caffeinated. Should read as follows
Brad: “Especially when the shake-up was conducted 100% in the open, democratically, using a democratic process. There was nothing secret being done. Nothing underhanded.”
Nope. Works that were never even nominated or recommended by *anyone* in the open thread (ie, Juliette Wade’s, and the KJA novel) made it to your slate. If it was democratic, where did the votes come from?
Works with the highest number of recommendations (Domo, by Joshua M Young, which had as many recommendations as Interstellar) didn’t make it onto the slate. If open, why was it rejected? FWiW, I doubt the author declined, as he was on the thread and was happy to be recommended by others.
Source: The original recommendation thread: https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/announcing-sad-puppies-3/
And this summary:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KsUUULAR4McYiosUfFT1lr9IRnJgYabSuX6qgSEs19s/edit?usp=sharing )
@Schwartz:
“It was predictable: I knew from the very beginning that the child was going to live in the end, because of the way the story was playing out.”
Gee, you guessed that a story about a Christmas miracle starring a dying child was going to have the dying child live? You might as well say any whodunnit story is ‘predictable’ because you can predict that the detective will solve the murder.
Schwartzie, you do not know what the word ‘predictable’ means. You call dull the same topic which the Book of Job addresses: Life and death, love and loss, hope and hopelessness to you are boring.
You did not say the writing was bad, you said the topic was boring to you. That is a reflection on you. It sounds like you hate mother love and Christmas day and other good things in life. You spit out the elfish bread and call it dust and ashes.
you keep repeating that this is all about good fiction … and I keep butting up against the truly atrocious stories in every one of the short story categories.
you keep repeating that everything was aboveboard and transparent … and then continually fail to provide evidence that that is so
how many failures must we overlook before we realize that this is not at all about good fiction and transparency but rather hurt feelings and spite?
Dr. Mauser: I’ve seen proposals for adding an intermediate stage to the nominations process, like yours, and the standard response seems to be “that would be too much additional work for the Hugo administrators, who are already extremely busy volunteers”.
SFF has certainly been far more exclusionary to women, and to LGBTQ folk, in the past than it is anywhere close to being to men now — unless somehow “exclusionary” means “publishing a majority of the work in the field.”
If author diversity or reader diversity was important, we’d be seeing a pushback in other genres where there was a lack of diversity. Most romance readers are female (I see statistics of between 85-90% from different sources). Although I can’t see statistics, it seems to be taken for granted that most romance writers are female, and that many male romance authors use female pseudonyms to sell their books. If it’s acceptable that men and women in general have different tastes in books, then awards for sub-genres with skewed reader demographics (like romance novels) will be dominated by books intended for the larger reader demographics. Also, if taste differences are acceptable, then claims of exclusion are going to need to be tempered by understanding the underlying demographic differences.
I found a Pew study for 2013 that says 82% of women and 69% of men read at least one book that year. If balance is the objective, why so much effort to balance one of the rare male-reader heavy genres? Such a massive difference in reader numbers suggests that women readers are privileged in the wider world of books and men are the underserved demographic group.
While I can’t speak to all the reviews by people who were surprised at puppy works even being nominated, I’d seen a number and they were… nasty.
A number of them were in the grey area of “taste” – but it was obvious from some of the comments that style snobbery was major point against the puppy works. I cannot speak to whether or not it was a fig leaf to cover over a “dislike of author/politics/lack of progressivism”
A number of others though. I’m hard pressed to defend as “fair” as it’s difficult to believe they read the same words I did. It certainly has given me food for thought as previously I’d given far less credence to Haidt’s statements that conservatives operate on MORE moral axes than liberals and which axes they operate on. It’s as if some of the reviewers cannot see that which is right in front of them.
you keep repeating that this is all about good fiction … and I keep butting up against the truly atrocious stories in every one of the short story categories.
How many of them are worse than “If you were a dinosaur, my love”, which, furthermore, isn’t even science fiction?
I find it ironic that people (that fail repeatedly to address the responses from the last time someone countered their exact same objections) are complaining about transparency when they are able to go back and link to the posts where the discussion was done and even compile spreadsheets of references for what was a unorganized ad-hoc process run by a disparate group of random bloggers.
@ A Man in Ash
“I disagree with a lot of what the Sad Puppies have to say, I don’t like a lot of them, and I don’t imagine most of them would like me, but their willingness to stand against that sort of patronizing, dehumaning effrontery from privileged bullies like Scalzi leaves me with no doubt about which side to root for.”
Well, Ash, I like you just fine for having said that. I do not turn away readers just because they disagree with my politics. No one agrees with my politics. When I find someone in danger of agreeing, I change my politics. Stories are supposed to be about art, about entertainment, about looking up from the sheep-grazing of quotidian life and beholding the stars.
@ The Hon. Philbert Watson III, Esq.
“Conservatives trying to understand art, let alone choose the best art, is a little like a cat trying to choose the best bone. It’s not your fault. Conservatives simply aren’t cut out for the task. Sci-Fi has to do with imagining the future. Conservatives, by their very nature and definition, are all about taking things slow, or better yet, keeping things exactly the same. Their safe zone. Meanwhile, the future is about change… a lot of change. That is why conservatives can’t understand Sci Fi, and think that all the best Sci Fi — the stories that win awards — is actually the worst. They just can’t grasp it.”
So says a man trapped in the 1960’s when it comes to policies of race and sex, and trapped in the 1860’s when it comes to economic policy.
So says a man who cannot even imagine that those who disagree with him even have a legitimate argument, or a sane point of view.
Amusing as it is to be lectured about the nature of art and futurity by a parochial sectarian trapped in a thought-prison of endless petty and pretty distractions, honor requires some perfunctory response.
People who have read Homer and Virgil, Dante and Homer, not to mention everyone from Abraham Merritt to Roger Zelazny, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley to Gene Wolfe, and so know the field from A to Z and from eldest to latest, know quite a bit more about the reaches of the imagination than dullards who read nothing outside their comfort zone of Sheri S. Tepper and Joanna Russ … oh, wait. You probably do not know who that is. Miss Russ wrote a book called THE FEMALE MAN, which was regarded, by the rather narrow and tepid ‘standards’ of the progressives of that time, as being a new take on feminist dogma.
Then the strumpet called fashion (which you laud with trumpets as ‘change’, and worship) had her empty head turned by another trivial distraction, and Russ was forgotten.
Meanwhile, the eternal things of which our literature was composed, continue to make immortal works of art.
Science fiction is, was, and always shall be conservative, since it is about reason, about the future, about the unconquerable spirit of man, and has nothing to do with gnawing over past or imaginary grievances, wishful thinking, blither, nonsense, blaming others and getting something for nothing.
Conservatives accomplish things like the Apollo moonshots. We plant the footstep of man where none have trod before. Progressive accomplish things like Woodstock concerts: smelly barbarians copulating in the mud while dazed and elated on drugs.
The only part progressives play in science fiction is reading NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR by Orwell, or ‘Harrison Bergeron’ by Vonnegut, and taking them as inspirations rather than warnings.
Go back to sleep, my dear Mr Watson. Retreat back into your nautiloid shell of progressive navel-gazing self-absorption, and leave the future to those with eyes to see it, and hands to work for it.
I’ve seen many of fandom complaining that the Puppy nominees aren’t that good. I don’t get this, as I’ve read most of the Puppy nominees and they are very good. I’ve read some short stories and novelettes from recent prior years and they are not better than the Puppy nominees.
I only have three theories to cover the discrepancies:
1. Tastes truly do differ, but generally track ideological and/or cultural perspectives.
2. They’re lying when they say the Puppy works are poor, and are instead engaged in “snit-picking” and trolling.
3. Some combination of one and two.
RCade: They matter to Torgersen, because he just touted that his effort was “100% in the open, democratically, using a democratic process.” So let’s see that open democracy.
You know who else demands that votes be revealed? Teamsters, so they can bully and attack people who don’t obey the Teamsters’ “suggestions”.
Color me not surprised that you moved the goalposts to that point.
Welcome to Puppy World, where the people asking understandable questions about facts that seem on their surface to be at odds with the official story are the ones “pushing a narrative”.
Welcome to the Big Tent, where all ideas are welcome because science fiction is about ideas, even dangerous ones… except for feminism, critical race theory, or any idea that makes us uncomfortable, because those ideas are just too dangerous to be allowed.
Welcome to the future of science fiction, where we welcome all stories that are good enough to attract an audience… unless we decide that the audience reading them isn’t made up of “real” readers, but merely people trying to impress critics and tastemakers.
Welcome to the world where what’s good and bad in fiction and who are good and bad readers are decided solely by the tastes of the Sad Puppies. Tastemakers? Heavens, no! Julius Caesar would accept a crown before Larry and Brad would accede to the title of tastemaker or censor! We all know how much he hated the idea of being king. He refused that honor so hard that two thousand years later his name is synonymous with “head honcho above everybody else” in more than a dozen languages.
The only honest thing I’ve heard from the Puppy camp is that you all value the ability to tell a good story. I believe that, because Brad Torgersen has dozens of them! According to one of his stories, this is just about competing tastes and it’s all subjective. But he’s got another story where the past winners are just plain bad and only won because of affirmative action. Gosh, isn’t it the mark of a gifted storyteller that they can take the same sequence of events and tell it fresh each time?
Tell me the story about how science fiction has been stagnant for decades, Brad! No, wait… tell me the story about how in the last decade it changed sharply from the way it had been for decades, which was fine. I like that story better. It has more exciting villains.
So many stories. What a gift you have! Your muse must be exhausted.
When I hold up two Sad Puppy fingers, SJWs see 100. They keep saying we must disavow two people who, by SJW standards of group defamation, aren’t up to snuff. SJWs never shut up about the two, acting as if the two themselves occupy every niche throughout SFF’s institutions.
The truth is that using their own standards of group defamation, SJWs would have to do the equivalent of digging the Panama Canal to get their side down to only two people, though they do in fact occupy every niche of SFF’s institutions. SJWs themselves have so many of what they claim to detest it would be easier for an entire generation to die off of old age rather than imagine they’ll ever disavow each other. When I hold up 100 fingers on the SJW hand, SJWs see 0. See: power/privilege theory, or what I call excuse notes from teacher.
The problem is I’m not hopeful of a new generation of SJWs. When a guy who hangs out with a underage sex advocate has a story which includes underage sex, a second author a story that starts out “1955. Emmett Till,” and a third author has a story where a women kills all the male members of her family and all three are nominated for Nebulas this year, I don’t have high hopes for the future. The three practically spell out “straight, white, male.”
Never in a thousand years would an SJW write a post called “Is the Arabian Nights Too Arab?” You know why? They would (rightly) consider that to be wrong. And yet that didn’t stop Hugo and Nebula nominee Saladin Ahmed from writing “Is ‘Game of Thrones’ Too White?” at the shithole called Salon.
What SJW would see a newspaper article where a transgender person molested a child and then write a post called “When Will Transgender Stop Molesting Children?” They wouldn’t do that because they would (rightly) consider it to be wrong.
That didn’t stop i09 from writing “When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar?” Apparently James Cameron (and other SF authors) represents all whites in a complete contradiction of a principle where SJWs (rightly) lambaste anyone for saying when will PoC stop flying planes into my skyscrapers. And yet there are some 20,000 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 and far fewer novels like Dune or Dances With Wolves. This guilt by DNA seems to have some double blinkered vision that sees what it wants to see when it wants to see it. Gee, I wonder why?
Every time an SJW opens their mouth they’re defending some incredible double standard based on (right) race and (right) sex you could pass an ocean through, so large is the gap.
Can you imagine the furor that would erupt if anyone with a history of hateful comments towards non-whites and women announced they didn’t review books by non-whites or women? And yet we’re supposed to swallow that double standard cuz power/privilege. Let’s just forget the two people doing that have a history of inflammatory, defamatory racial and sexual incitement towards whites and men. Is anyone disavowing those two? Keep dreaming. One site’s up for a Hugo, the other has a Nebula nominee from its site.
We’re further asked to believe a woman with a history of racial incitement just happened to ask us to not read books by cis white men for a year, or forget that she oversees a racially segregated room and dinner where whites are not welcome. See: more excuse notes from teacher. The fact she calls herself an “anti-racist” is enough to blow Orwell out his grave and into near-Earth orbit.
When is obvious obvious? SJWs possess all the classic hallmarks of a hate group. Period. We are sick to death of these bozos and their transparent con game.
“Science fiction is, was, and always shall be conservative, since it is about reason, about the future, about the unconquerable spirit of man, and has nothing to do with gnawing over past or imaginary grievances, wishful thinking, blither, nonsense, blaming others and getting something for nothing. ”
Well done.
Its amazing how much time the SJW’s have to post comments here, at File 707, and other places. Do they ever write any books? I mean books that people read.
“You know who else demands that votes be revealed? Teamsters, so they can bully and attack people who don’t obey the Teamsters’ ‘suggestions.'”
I’m not demanding anything. I am asking Torgersen to show how his “100% in the open” process for selecting the Sad Puppies slate was 100% open.
He keeps telling people his process was open and democratic, but when pressed for details he’s nowhere to be found. Nor do any of the other Evil League of Evil authors explain how they chose works for their slate, and why some public suggestions from Torgersen’s blog were disregarded in favor of their own choices.
Because suggestions are suggestions, not requirements. I don’t see how that’s so hard for you to understand.
Welcome to the Big Tent, where all ideas are welcome because science fiction is about ideas, even dangerous ones… except for feminism, critical race theory, or any idea that makes us uncomfortable, because those ideas are just too dangerous to be allowed.
Nobody on the Sad Puppies side is saying any ideas aren’t allowed. The only people seeking to exclude other points of view from the debate are people like Alexandra here. It’s her side that’s saying “No white males! No homophobes! No racists! No sexists! No non-binary gender! No icky Christians that actually believe in their faith! No conservatives! No bigots!” and not realizing that their hypocrisy is pushing more and more people away.
We’ve heard conflicting stories for quite some time, where new and diverse voters are good (but only as long as they vote the same way), where the awards are supposed to go to the best sci-fi of all time (but only as judged by a narrow clique of people that attend one specific convention), where haters are to be excluded (except ones that only hate bad people)… the list goes on and on.
Alexandra, if you are going to comment on sci-fi literature, please actually read things and try to understand what is being said before you go on an embarrassing rant.
What nonsense from Erin. Third Wave Gender Abolition Feminism and Critical Race Theory don’t make me uncomfortable; I despise them in the same way I despise the KKK and neo-Nazis since they can never express themselves without defaming men, whites and heterosexuals as an entire group.
Who in their right mind really believes the idea all men on Earth benefitting from sexism is a legitimate idea? Worse than that, what does it have to do with SFF? SFF is a speculative genre of adventurous myths; it does not default to Foucauldian French Queer Theory, the abolition of gender and racial intersectionalism. Why in the world would Andrea Dworkin and Audre Lorde in any way be central to SFF, or Jim Crow? That is the mark of an unhealthy obsession intruding itself into an inappropriate space, not a natural intersection with this literature. Should the NAACP, GLAAD and NOW be urged to hold SFF symposiums or suffer the mass accusation of some stupid character fault or cowardice? Do you see us lining our rhetoric with trigger warnings, safe spaces and calls to not applaud because clapping may invoke PTSD, or is that you and your mentally handicapped ideology of mass defamation and hate speech?
As for affirmative action, if you want to get rid of that label, stop doing this:
“Sofia Samatar @SofiaSamatar My list (which is already growing, & will have to be updated!) of #horror by non-western writers/writers of color”
“Retweeted by Foz Meadows Nnedi Okorafor, PhD @Nnedi 60 Black Women in Horror now on Smashwords (Free) ”
“Retweeted by M J Locke A.C. Wise @ac_wise · My latest Women to Read post is at @sfsignal with @CarolineYoachim @erinmorgenstern @AlyxDellamonica & @mamohanraj”
“Rose Lemberg retweeted prezzey *Bogi Takács @bogiperson · just a reminder that i have a SF story with two #nonbinary #trans* protagonists 🙂 because yes.”
“Rose Lemberg retweeted Daniel Fredriksson @thelovelymrfred · I’ve decided to start a book group celebrating queer, feminist and postcolonial SF/F. It shall be called @fabulations. RTs appreciated”
“Bee Sriduangkaew @bees_ja Just cobbled this together quickly – a very incomplete list of queer SFF published in 2013 I liked!”
“Alex D MacFarlane @foxvertebrae I look forward to following it up with THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF SF STORIES BY WOMEN in 2014, which, trust me, is going to be fucking brilliant.”
“Abigail Nussbaum @NussbaumAbigail @shaunduke @niallharrison @jdiddyesquire I need a manifesto for it to be clear that I want women, PoCs and progressive themes on the ballot?”
“Feminist FrequencyVerified account @femfreq Really enjoyed the engaging mysteries set in compelling worlds full of people of colour found in Amanda Downum’s The Necromancer Chronicles.”
“Feminist FrequencyVerified account @femfreq I love the richly developed world of vN & iD by @MadelineAshby which explore themes of resistance and choice within systems of oppression.”
“Kameron Hurley retweeted Jenn Brissett @jennbrissett · 19 Science-Fiction And Fantasy Novels By Women Of Color You Must Read via @buzzfeeders”
“Farah Mendlesohn @effjayem Just read Afrofuturism by Ytasha L Womack. Not sure it’s a good book but it is an important one. On my #HugoList it goes.”
“This is about the Hugo award, and Worldcon, and decades of seeping stagnation, and the ossification of the mindset of the so-called “keepers” of the field’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award.” ”
So when you were nominated for a Hugo, you said to yourself “Damn, that really sucks. Ossified keepers have nominated me for a seepingly stagnated award. I’m a total loser”.
Or did you form that opinion after you lost?
Not sure it’s a good book but it is an important one. On my #HugoList it goes.
It’s not good, but it’s worthy of a Hugo?
Oh, and I wonder how open her #HugoList slate is?
I will give SJWs credit. They do have imagination in their stories set in the future. I say this because they often portray an advanced society that has fully embraced their ideology. A more accurate portrayal of a future society that fully embraced their ideology would be one where the society talks about how they would have invented an interstellar rocket but they couldn’t because racism or sexism or genderism.
Alexandra Erin: Welcome to Puppy World, where anti-Puppies dedicate their every waking moment to tweeting about Sad Puppies, writing nasty blog posts mocking Sad Puppies, and going onto Sad Puppy blogs to rant and rave.
Thank you for proving my point. 🙂
BTW, did you ever take me up on my challenge to actually read The Chaplain’s War, so that you could at least criticize Brad from a position of knowledge?
@ Civilis “How many of them are worse than “If you were a dinosaur, my love”, which, furthermore, isn’t even science fiction?”
“Six Months, Three Days” by Charlie Jane Anders comes pretty damn close. I wanted both main characters to die painful lonely deaths by the end of that story.
Rogers Cadenhead: He keeps telling people his process was open and democratic, but when pressed for details he’s nowhere to be found. Nor do any of the other Evil League of Evil authors explain how they chose works for their slate, and why some public suggestions from Torgersen’s blog were disregarded in favor of their own choices.
Martin L. Shoemaker: Because suggestions are suggestions, not requirements. I don’t see how that’s so hard for you to understand.
A process where the masses (for lack of a better word) make suggestions to their leaders, which the leaders can accept or ignore, is not a democratic process. I can ask my children to suggest what they want for dinner, but since my family is not a democracy, the grown-ups don’t have to accede to their desires. In a Leninist state with “People’s Democratic Republic” in its name, the Party Chairman can listen to suggestions from workers on the factory floor and follow them… or not.
Brad would be entirely within his rights to say “here are my personal recommendations regarding what stories most deserve Hugo nominations, which I came up with all by myself, and I’m putting them here on my blog, because it’s my blog”. But since he’s the one who is touting his process as “democratic”, it’s reasonable for other people to ask where the democracy is.
James may offer up a definition of an “SJW”, but he hasn’t done it yet.
James, I was not “swarmed by diversity”. A contributor offered up an opinion that was: not mainstream; unclear in parts; not as detailed or nuanced as it might have been.
Further, since it was not sufficiently clear at the time (my fault) that contributors to Amazing Stories are not operating under editorial guidance, but rather offering their own opinions, there was additional confusion regarding Amazing Stories’ position on the matter. This latter issue has since been addressed.
As has been well covered numerous times since that event took place, I was also out of town, attending to my father who died shortly thereafter and was not able to monitor comments sufficiently. There was more upset over the closing of comments than any other single thing related to the issue you mention.
That you’d use that incident that is well in the past, has been well explained in the past and one that was largely caused by a family tragedy does not speak well for you.
Alternatively, if you are referring to the Felicity Savage post and resulting comments – I call that nothing more than heated debate, though not heated enough to even boil water. Your sense of “swarming” is out of whack. Maybe you can’t handle a few comments that express views contrary to your own, but many people, including myself, can.
I’m still waiting for a definition of SJW that isn’t self-referential and/or one that doesn’t rely on other undefined terms to derive its meaning. Your attemot is akin to saying “An SJW is a flibbernit.” OK. Fine. Now please define “flibbernit”.
“Six Months, Three Days” by Charlie Jane Anders comes pretty damn close. I wanted both main characters to die painful lonely deaths by the end of that story.
So, it’s comparable to another story that was also nominated for a Hugo in terms of quality and more qualified in that it’s more science-fictiony. The problem with complaining about the quality of the Sad Puppy recommended lists is that the bar for acceptable quality for nominees has been set really low.
A process where the masses (for lack of a better word) make suggestions to their leaders, which the leaders can accept or ignore, is not a democratic process. I can ask my children to suggest what they want for dinner, but since my family is not a democracy, the grown-ups don’t have to accede to their desires.
You’re missing a major step here, though. In this case, the children have a democratic veto: they can go somewhere else to eat. Kids generally don’t have the option to walk away from the table and go somewhere else for dinner. The democratic part is that each voter independently chose to read the works and vote for the nominations, “one man, one vote” style.
I’m still waiting for a definition of SJW that isn’t self-referential and/or one that doesn’t rely on other undefined terms to derive its meaning. Your attemot is akin to saying “An SJW is a flibbernit.” OK. Fine. Now please define “flibbernit”.
Try coming up with an objective, non-referential definition for any ideological strain: “conservative”, “libertarian”, “progressive”, etc., and see how far you get. Any such strain can only be referred to as a set of general principles, which any particular person that self-identifies as may or may not actually have for each one.
In general, SJWs tend to hold values promoting identity via group membership along race, gender, or sexual identity and belief that certain groups in society have privilege along Marxist lines, and holds value in active evangelicalism for their dogma.
Kids generally don’t have the option to walk away from the table and go somewhere else for dinner. The democratic part is that each voter independently chose to read the works and vote for the nominations, “one man, one vote” style.
Well, that’s true of every other kind of Hugo recommendation. Nobody (to my knowledge) is holding a gun to any Worldcon member’s head and saying “vote this way or else”. If that’s all Brad means when he says that his process is “democratic”, the claim is vacuous.
“Because suggestions are suggestions, not requirements.”
If you call your campaign a democratic process that was “100% in the open,” as Torgersen did, then there are a few things we can fairly expect to be true:
1. All deliberations took place in the open.
2. Every participant had an equal say in the outcome.
Torgersen keeps talking about his campaign as a rejection of elitists and tastemakers who privately impose their idea of what’s excellent on the rest of us. But it appears Sad Puppies did exactly that: a self-selected elite (the Evil League of Evil authors) chose a slate in private.
Civilis: “The democratic part is that each voter independently chose to read the works and vote for the nominations, “one man, one vote” style.”
To be fair, that is the nomination portion though – a portion that Brad has no direct control over. The question asked was how was the slate selection open and democratic?
“Conservative”, “libertarian”, and “progressive” are labels that people apply to themselves. If I wanted a first approximation of what libertarians believe, for example, I could look for the Libertarian Party’s Web site. Obviously there are all sorts of nuances and factions within the movement, but my libertarian friend and I can agree on the proposition “X is a libertarian” and disagree on “X has good ideas about economics”.
“SJW” is an epithet, a label that people almost always use to describe their opponents, not themselves. I see all sorts of accusations flying around about how “SJWs believe this” and “SJWs do that”; sometimes I see myself in the description, and sometimes I don’t recognize anyone I know.
Well, that’s true of every other kind of Hugo recommendation. Nobody (to my knowledge) is holding a gun to any Worldcon member’s head and saying “vote this way or else”. If that’s all Brad means when he says that his process is “democratic”, the claim is vacuous.
It’s important because people in the discussion are piling the whole thing on Brad. Brad didn’t have 1000 votes. Brad had one vote. Anyone that read Brad’s discussions and recommendations, read one of the books recommended based on any recommendation from that discussion, and chose to nominate the book is equally responsible as Brad is.
“SJW” is an epithet, a label that people almost always use to describe their opponents, not themselves. I see all sorts of accusations flying around about how “SJWs believe this” and “SJWs do that”; sometimes I see myself in the description, and sometimes I don’t recognize anyone I know.
Most of the time I see “conservatives” or “libertarians” from someone that doesn’t identify as one I don’t recognize anyone I know. I can read all the denunciations of “white male patriarchy” and it does not resemble anyone I know. That’s why simplistic group identity politics is so corrosive to discussions.
“Conservative”, “libertarian”, and “progressive” are labels that people apply to themselves.
All right, let’s take “fascist” as a term that is always used (these days) to describe opponents (any resemblance between that and a early 20th century Italian political party is clearly irrelevant). A progressive and a libertarian may have different objective standards for what a fascist is, which almost certainly will apply to the other side.
So now the SJW’s are playing the “What’s a SJW? Please provide definition” game. Good lord. Just a distraction from the real discussion. SJW’s love calling anyone who disagrees with them names. Racist/sexist/bigot/hater/homophobe, or using ill-defined labels like “male patriarchy” “oppression” “Cis white male” “reactionary” etc. But suddenly they now want words to have clear meanings and people to eschew epitaphs. Right.
Social Justice is defined as justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. so a Social Justice Warrior might be simply and uncontroversially defined as an activist that pursues the cause of Social Justice in order to change society. I would add that a Social Justice Warrior need necessarily believe in measuring how just a society is through Marxist group identity and privilege theory, and seeks to redistribute privilege.
“SJW’s love calling anyone who disagrees with them names.”
LOL. Do you see the irony in this sentence?
Not a complete definition, but certainly part of the description of SJW: ‘Intolerance’. The reason that you can even have the discussion here or at Corriea’s forum is that here your words aren’t dsmvwld, malleted or lost in moderation.
As in, you are tolerated here. SP proponents at ML, Whatever and frequently at 770 are not. Mind you, I have wondered if that’s a good policy for Brad and Larry since their consideration is frequently not reciprocated but this is their space and not mine.
As in, you are tolerated here. SP proponents at ML, Whatever and frequently at 770 are not. Mind you, I have wondered if that’s a good policy for Brad and Larry since their consideration is frequently not reciprocated but this is their space and not mine.
That’s because we’re serious when we say all ideas are welcome. It makes you wonder how someone can throw out this strawman:
Welcome to the Big Tent, where all ideas are welcome because science fiction is about ideas, even dangerous ones… except for feminism, critical race theory, or any idea that makes us uncomfortable, because those ideas are just too dangerous to be allowed.
We allow anyone to state their ideas. If those ideas are ignorant, we’ll criticize them. If they’re really stupid, we’ll make fun of them.
Welcome to the Progeressive Social Justice Big Tent, where all Progressive ideas are welcome! Unless they make us uncomfortable. Up twinkles, everyone, because clapping is a microaggression, and we all know microaggressions are tools of the Patriarchy!
I’ve never enjoyed playing Net Nanny. Some authors shape and tailor their blog comments to form a “community” (cough, echo chamber, cough) but that’s not my style. There’s only one guy I nuke around here just because he’s literally mental (Clamps) otherwise I assume people are grownups and can handle themselves. Including my critics and opponents. Once in awhile if things get really bad, I may interject and ask people to move along. But I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve done that.
Open question to all the SJWs posting here. If the Puppies (Rabid and Sad) are so wrong and the Hugo nominated work that is indicative of the best works of scifi are so good, why have sales at all houses not named Baen been dropping over the last ten or so years?
Also, why have so many people been posting that they either a) hadn’t read scifi in a while because it had become preachy and boring or b) hadn’t had an opinion until they read MakingLight or some other SJW site and been disgusted by the tone and character assassination going on there?
I will also echo a few other posters and note that none of you have been edited, deleted or disemvoweled (such a mature response BTW) at this site (or Larry’s or Vox’s for that matter). If SJWs are so tolerant (as they proclaim), why not let the message speak for itself instead of having to silence any dissent?
So since we need an exacting definition of SJW. It’s anyone who engages in a list of totalitarian philosophies based on the concept that a particular group of people is victimized by society and requires special treatment to overcome this victimization. It also implies that the oppressors are inherently oppressors and unless they continuously try to avoid oppressing people they will default to oppression. These concepts all have the common theme that straight white men are the highest of oppressors. While all of their philosophies are not identical they mostly are Liberation Theologists (well documented term) of one form or another.
Thing about the Big Tent is, you are free to present your concept, theory, or idea, and it will be exposed to the harsh sunlight of disagreement.
The perpetrators of Critical Race Theory — that smelly orthodoxy originated by academic crank and wannabe SF writer, Derrick Bell — not only cannot tolerate disagreement, they want disagreement ended by whatever social or legal means necessary.
Nothing wrong with the feminism of the suffragettes, because there’s nothing wrong with equal opportunity, and having an equal say in a republic.
But the hyper-feminists (female chauvinist pigs?) coming out of certain academic sectors in the 21st century bear little resemblance to the suffragettes. The hyper-feminists are (by and large) male-hating, hetero-hating, caucasian-hating, and when it comes right down to it, equality-hating. Because a great deal of their activism focuses entirely on arbitrary punishment and segregation — the banishing of “toxic masculinity” and the enshrining of passive-aggression as the only acceptable mode of dialogue.
Directly challenging hyper-feminism is automatically interpreted by the hyper-feminists as “oppression” and “making the space unsafe” because hyper-feminists cannot tolerate different ideas; even from (or should I say, especially from?) classical feminists.
@Civilis, but also to people who don’t seem to get privilege in general:
“He didn’t nail it because the privilege he talks about is completely illusory. It’s based on pandering to group identity politics. Pretending that the President of the United States has less power than an Appalachian hill person, because the President is a PoC and the hill person is white, is delusional.”
Indeed, it is. Of course, that’s not what *anyone* talking about privilege is saying.
“X privilege” simply means that *all other things being equal*, there is an advantage to being X. (Draven, this is for you, in particular.) Repeated research (and I will happily dig out cites if anyone wants to see them) shows that, for example, carefully *equalized* resumes will get much better responses if the name attached to them is “white” instead of apparently “ethnic” or “black”. (I am 90% sure the same work has been done for gender, but I cannot speak with the same certainty, having not read the papers)
That’s a bit of privilege.
Privilege doesn’t trump everything — it’s not as if 100% of white people are ahead of 100% of non-white people — but it’s a little bit of a leg up.
It’s most obvious, of course, in class privilege — the people with more money who can send their kids to the after-school programs that impress the good schools that make it easier — not simple, not inevitable, but *easier* — to get the good job to make the good money to repeat the cycle. But it’s there in so many other ways as well.
“Lamenting the discredited statistic that women make 77% of what men make while ignoring the real statistics disproportionately stacked against men (men have lower life expectancy, receive harsher sentences for the same crimes, are underrepresented in college, have a much higher rate of workplace injuries and fatalities, etc.) is ridiculous.”
The “men are underrepresented in college” is a statistic that’s only been true in the past few years. We don’t have to go very far back at all to the days when prestigious universities were closed to women, for example.
I will also note that your statistics about “higher rate of workplace injuries &c.” stands in direct correlation to your “where do men and women work” complaint from above. If those jobs were more proportionately arranged, do you think the fatalities might be a tiad closer? Just maybe?
Oh — let’s look at, say, CEO ratios. Or government official ratios. Do you think that might have anything to do with power, who holds it, etc?
“Scalzi’s “all white men are living life on easy mode” doesn’t pass a laugh test. Reducing people to their superficial group identity is such a poor way to deal with individuals with diverse experiences that I can’t see how anyone seriously can think that way.”
You do realize that a) people think in exactly the fashion you’ve described — they reduce all sorts of people to their “superficial group identity” and make judgments thereupon, which is how we *get* housing/financial/etc. discrimination remaining to this day, and b) if you’re going to do any kind of social science at all, you *can’t* look at all individuals with diverse experiences?
“Ironically, sci-fi has repeatedly examined that, and just about every author that has has ended up portraying it as a dystopia.”
That’s because if we looked at *nothing* else, it would be.
“You, at least, have indicated you’ve tried reading outside your own worldview, which is more than I can say for many on your side.”
You might be surprised, if you ask. Most of the people I know have read, for example, Powers and Wolfe, a large number have read Chesterton, Lewis, Tolkien, etc.
“Sci-fi stories are stories of ideas, as such the important diversity is the ideological bent of the writer, not the superficial identity.”
Embrace the power of “and” 😉 — people with different upbringings will have different experiences of the world, and that will inform both their ideology and their writing.
If you haven’t, I recommend “The Motion of Light in Water”, by Samuel R. Delany; it’s a fascinating biography, and it also explains a lot about both who Chip grew up to be, and what Chip ended up writing.
“There’s nothing wrong with bringing different authors in who may have different ideas, but in order for change to happen, you still have to reward the good ones, and not the ones that are the most different. But what’s happening is is that it’s gone from bringing new authors in to rewarding new authors just for being different to excluding groups that don’t sufficiently bow down to the worship of superficial diversity.”
You’ll need to provide evidence for that claim — because, as I’ve said, it’s not like Baen isn’t still publishing many of the Puppies, etc. And writing “Another Good Example Of The Same Sort Of Ficiton We’ve Seen Before” should, IMHO, lose to “A Good Example Of Something We’ve Not Explored” or “A Good Example Of Something From A New Viewpoint.”
All three should lose to “A Great Work of Art”, but I’d hope that’s something we can all agree on.
“If the Puppies (Rabid and Sad) are so wrong and the Hugo nominated work that is indicative of the best works of scifi are so good, why have sales at all houses not named Baen been dropping over the last ten or so years?”
Is McDonald’s the best burger in the world because it’s the best-selling?
Define “best burger” in an objective fashion. Until you can do that, the question can only be answered statistically: the burger that most people choose is the burger that meets their subjective definitions of “best”.
And once you’ve done that: objectively define “best book”. If you can do that, we don’t need votes. We can apply the objective standard.
@gabrielpumpkin “Gee, you guessed that a story about a Christmas miracle starring a dying child was going to have the dying child live?”
Ayup. Of course, it didn’t come with a “This is a Christmas Miracle Story” header, so I had hoped that perhaps it might be something different, or a tad deeper. As it was, the knowledge of “Oh, I can see where this is going” sucked out all the emotional charge of the child’s death — leaving the entire story, to me, flat.
“You might as well say any whodunnit story is ‘predictable’ because you can predict that the detective will solve the murder.”
If I can look at the first few paragraphs, go “I know who the murderer is, I know how he’ll be discovered, and I know what the method of murder was”, it had best be a story of significant insight and literary value if it wants to win an award.
“Schwartzie, you do not know what the word ‘predictable’ means. You call dull the same topic which the Book of Job addresses: Life and death, love and loss, hope and hopelessness to you are boring.”
When it does it with a cheap emotional hook at the beginning (and yes — I do call it cheap, because if you can tell that it’s going to end up OK from the way it’s written, it’s nothing but shock value) and doesn’t say anything particularly new or interesting, instead taking paragraph after weary paragraph to telegraph something obvious — yes, it’s predictable. And dull.
If “Those Who Walk Away from Omelas” had been a novella, while maintaining its depth of characterization, it would have also been dull.
“You did not say the writing was bad, you said the topic was boring to you. That is a reflection on you. It sounds like you hate mother love and Christmas day and other good things in life. You spit out the elfish bread and call it dust and ashes.”
The writing is also bad — which is part of *why* it was dull and predictable.
The book of Job, whether or not I agree with it theologically, is a masterwork. Other people have written Christmas Miracle stories that worked. This one just doesn’t cut it.
“
rcade: “Is McDonald’s the best burger in the world because it’s the best-selling?”
So it is back to the smelly masses need to shut up and let WorldCon be its own little clique? We already knew you felt that way, it’s just nice to have confirmation instead of hemming and hawing.
If that’s all you need out of the Hugo Awards — the book that sells the best is the best — then you don’t need the Hugos at all. You can just let Amazon rankings and Bookscan data be your guide.
Still waiting for your objective definition of “best burger” or “best book”.
Keep moving those goalposts, rcade. Sales (and more significantly, comments about people leaving scifi as a viable genre) speak to the fact that fewer and fewer people find novels in that category entertaining, ergo, worthy of their time (and therefore, not worthy of an award, regardless of what the Illuminati think). If you can’t grasp that concept, you are dumber than you have let on.
“So it is back to the smelly masses need to shut up and let WorldCon be its own little clique?”
My question had nothing to do with that sentiment. It’s bizarre you claim otherwise.
Contrary to what Torgersen and Correia are claiming, Worldcon is not an exclusive clique. I’ve voted for the Hugos for six years. They took my $40 and let me vote just like anybody else. I’ve never been told how to vote nor encouraged to pick a slate. I chose individual works in good faith that I personally thought excellent.
@JCW: “People who have read Homer and Virgil, Dante and Homer, not to mention everyone from Abraham Merritt to Roger Zelazny, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley to Gene Wolfe, and so know the field from A to Z and from eldest to latest, know quite a bit more about the reaches of the imagination than dullards who read nothing outside their comfort zone of Sheri S. Tepper and Joanna Russ … oh, wait. You probably do not know who that is. Miss Russ wrote a book called THE FEMALE MAN, which was regarded, by the rather narrow and tepid ‘standards’ of the progressives of that time, as being a new take on feminist dogma.”
Hm. I don’t think I’ve ever met *anyone*, and I am quite sure I’ve moved much more in the realm of feminist SF fans than you have, Mr. Wright, who doesn’t go outside the “Tepper and Russ” comfort zone.
So, we begin with a strawman on your part.
As to the Female Man, trust me, sure, there’s much more originality and quality in that work than in your entire oeuvre — and it did not claim to be breaking huge new ground; only to be doing it in a fine, easily understood, and appreciated form. The bones of theory given flesh and sinew, as it were.
“Then the strumpet called fashion (which you laud with trumpets as ‘change’, and worship) had her empty head turned by another trivial distraction, and Russ was forgotten.”
Trust me; Russ is not forgotten. *You* may have forgotten her. The people who laud your works may never have been exposed to her — but she is not forgotten. People will be reading Russ, and her excellent yarns (since “The Female Man” is hardly the limits of her work) long after the fashions of today are forgotten.
“Science fiction is, was, and always shall be conservative, since it is about reason, about the future, about the unconquerable spirit of man, and has nothing to do with gnawing over past or imaginary grievances, wishful thinking, blither, nonsense, blaming others and getting something for nothing. ”
I find this…risible. Science fiction is about many things — reason is part of it, and so is unreason; the future, and also, in some cases (or would you deny alternate history?) the past. The unconquerable spirit of man, and its conquest.
The fact that you want to eliminate “things that are not what I like” from the realm of science fiction does not mean that they are gone. It means only that they are not what you like.
If you want to claim SF is conservative, and want us to leave, were I to leave, I’d leave in good company, with Asimov, Heinlein*, Tiptree, Russ, Dick, Disch, Delany, Ellison, Gibson, Banks, Le Guin, and so on, and so forth — because these are people who “conservatives” of the time decried. You want to go back in time and claim people you like as somehow “conservative” — but they were not, and their stories were not, either.
*Heinlein might have to engage in meiosis to stay in multiple camps, but he’s dead; I’m sure he can manage. 🙂
Martin L. Shoemaker, fuck you. Many people here many times over have stated we want a story first, message second. Even if it is a message we think is crap, if the story grips us and entertains us, it is good. If it tells me how bad I am or how doomed we are and does it as nauseatingly boring a fashion as possible, regardless of who wrote it or what their politics are, it sucks. Is that sufficient or do you need me to spell it out in more detail?
Steven, it sounds like your own allies haven’t gotten the message:
I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender.
(From http://tinyurl.com/kqlbvzf)
I will also note that your statistics about “higher rate of workplace injuries &c.” stands in direct correlation to your “where do men and women work” complaint from above. If those jobs were more proportionately arranged, do you think the fatalities might be a tad closer? Just maybe?
Ok, but it stands in direct contrast to the “Men have all the good jobs” logic. Perhaps men make more because they have the more dangerous jobs? Why is the 3% pay difference worth a massive campaign to rectify, but the 2 year life expectancy difference not worth mentioning? Why aren’t people condemning the vast matriarchy that throws men in prison and has them die earlier?
You do realize that a) people think in exactly the fashion you’ve described — they reduce all sorts of people to their “superficial group identity” and make judgments thereupon, which is how we *get* housing/financial/etc. discrimination remaining to this day, and b) if you’re going to do any kind of social science at all, you *can’t* look at all individuals with diverse experiences?
I realize they do, and Social Justice types certainly aren’t immune to it either. However, doing so is necessarily a very crude and imprecise tool that should be used as little as possible.
Embrace the power of “and” 😉 — people with different upbringings will have different experiences of the world, and that will inform both their ideology and their writing.
Have you considered that you’re using this to rationalize your political biases? Campaigning for Social Justice is a morally conscionable way for liberals to punch down on conservatives and libertarians.
“Still waiting for your objective definition of ‘best burger’ or ‘best book.'”
You can wait forever. I’ve never claimed the Hugo Awards are an objective standard that defines the best. They are quite obviously a subjective judgment by the Worldcon members who vote on them.
My question about McDonald’s was directed at someone who put forward the idea that if past Hugo winners are so good, their publishers should be selling books as well as Baen.
bassmanco, and a healthy fuck you back. I’m one of Brad’s very good friends and supporters in this effort. What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?
“As in, you are tolerated here. SP proponents at ML, Whatever and frequently at 770 are not.”
I have not seen a SP proponent “not tolerated” at 770 — I’ve seen a few RPs have their comments deleted for going way over the top, but that’s different from having vehement disagreement.
Several RPs have asked me to depart their blogs; I have done so, out of a sense of politeness. But I have received less “tolerance” there than I’ve seen at, say, file770. Or, in some cases, at ML.
I suspect, though, that this is a matter of perception.
I was talking about the Savage piece. I don’t know anything about any family tragedy.
You yourself wrote “I’m honestly surprised at some of the responses this piece has received – it almost seems to have spawned an internet industry…” so you know you were swarmed. N. K. Jemisin and Silvia (“can someone think about the white people”) Moreno-Garcia did posts and Jemisin called the Savage piece “the kind of cluelessness that abounds within this genre, and Anglophone society as a whole.” Charming bit of insulting racial supremacy there typical of Jemisin, who has also referred to whites as “diabolical.” But don’t call her a “half-savage” cuz then suddenly racism appears from whatever demented dictionary feminists use.
People on Twitter claimed they were puking over the Savage piece and censored themselves from commenting. They were a who’s who of the usual anti-white racists always hiding behind “diversity” to light up whites – whining about “white saviors” and saying America is an “apartheid” and “white supremacy.”
All SJWs are intersectional gender feminists. There is no doubt about that. I’m surprised anyone following this issue would even ask. SJWs who introduced this brand of feminism into SFF make no secret of it. Anyone who supports them is supporting that specific ideology. Not knowing it’s name means nothing. Critical Race Theory meets lesbian-centric gender abolition to cure patriarchy. End of story.
@Schwartz: automatic reduction of two letter grades in concern trolling score by citing Delany as a resource to advance your argument.
Pro tip: do not expect a warm open reception to your suggestions when they are based in part upon the writings of a person who believes that situational examples of adult-child sexual relations are not just acceptable but beneficial.
Adendum: Delaney’s recent professional recognition by the SFWA as a Grand Master speaks volumes to the willful blindness of SJWs. Cast out VD for racism and bending Twitter posting rules? Well, ok, I guess. Exalt a documented pedophilia apologist like Delaney? SPITAKKE!
Try again, perhaps?
@Josh “It’s anyone who engages in a list of totalitarian philosophies based on the concept that a particular group of people is victimized by society and requires special treatment to overcome this victimization.”
Oh, cool! I can tell all the people I know that they’re not SJWs, because none of them are totalitarians! Perfect.
@brad: “The hyper-feminists are (by and large) male-hating, hetero-hating, caucasian-hating, and when it comes right down to it, equality-hating.”
I feel lucky, then, that I’ve never met anyone who fits that description in the feminist SF community. I’ve met some people who say things that men think means they hate them, etc., etc., and so forth. Of course, those rarely rise to the level that would be described as “hate speech”, but it’s enough to prick the skins of the people who feel misused.
No one ever said that equality would be comfortable to get to, especially for the people who were on top. One might hope that people could put up with a bit of discomfort along the way, but apparently not, in some cases.
“Martin L. Shoemaker, fuck you. Many people here many times over have stated we want a story first, message second. Even if it is a message we think is crap, if the story grips us and entertains us, it is good. If it tells me how bad I am or how doomed we are and does it as nauseatingly boring a fashion as possible, regardless of who wrote it or what their politics are, it sucks. Is that sufficient or do you need me to spell it out in more detail?”
We’ve heard what you’ve stated. And on more than one occasion, people have said back (but I’ll take another swing at it) that you’re asking for a subjective result, not an objective one. I’ve heard people say that “Ancillary Justice”‘s use of the single female pronoun in one culture is an “unacceptable message” — to me, it was an interesting point, emphasizing alienness of culture. And it didn’t get in the way of a great story.
It seems pretty clear that *everyone* thinks message is boring — the only question is when people perceive it, and when they don’t. For example, JCW’s short fiction to me appears so heavy-handed with message (delivered in leaden prose) that the story gets completely lost. Clearly, for other people, this is not true.
“Sales (and more significantly, comments about people leaving scifi as a viable genre) speak to the fact that fewer and fewer people find novels in that category entertaining, ergo, worthy of their time (and therefore, not worthy of an award …”
If you’re entertained by a book that didn’t sell well, does that mean you weren’t entertained?
High sales just means a lot of readers bought a book. The sales could be because it is excellent, because it is entertaining, because it’s heavily marketed, all of the above or none.
The best book I’ve read the past decade in any genre is Tinkers by Paul Harding. Before it won the Pulitzer, it had an extremely small press run from a tiny publisher based in Bellevue Hospital.
So your question — posed as a response to THEIR question — is no response at all. “Why don’t the results look more like the popular choices?” “Does popularity prove quality?” And now you say quality isn’t relevant after all, since it’s subjective. So since you have refuted your own argument, we’re left with “Why don’t the results look more like the popular choices?”
rcade: “Contrary to what Torgersen and Correia are claiming, Worldcon is not an exclusive clique. I’ve voted for the Hugos for six years. They took my $40 and let me vote just like anybody else. I’ve never been told how to vote nor encouraged to pick a slate. I chose individual works in good faith that I personally thought excellent.”
Then shut up and let us do the same.
No one ever said that equality would be comfortable to get to, especially for the people who were on top. One might hope that people could put up with a bit of discomfort along the way, but apparently not, in some cases. contrasts neatly with Oh, cool! I can tell all the people I know that they’re not SJWs, because none of them are totalitarians! Perfect.
Perhaps you don’t know what a totalitarian is? My comment about dystopias in sci-fi seems prescient. Harrison Bergeron, like many sci-fi novels, is not to be treated as an instruction manual.
@Schwartz: automatic reduction of two letter grades in concern trolling score by citing Delany as a resource to advance your argument.
Tell me, ratseal; how would you react if someone said “Oh, you cited John C. Wright in your argument — automatic reduction of two letter grades”?
If you wouldn’t object, welcome to hypocrisyland. If you would, then we can continue the discussion.
Short form: if you dismiss a man with a considerable body of work because of one opinion (and an opinion, mind you, that he simply stated more clearly than others. Consider, for example, Heinlein’s repeated usage (always stated as a good thing) of underage sex in his fiction. Perhaps no one asked him the question in a real-life form and wrote down the answer?)
For that matter, should we cast out of public dialogue the state of New Hampshire, which permits underage marriage (and with it, sexual relations within marriage) by the standards of most of the rest of the country?
“No one ever said that equality would be comfortable to get to, especially for the people who were on top. One might hope that people could put up with a bit of discomfort along the way, but apparently not, in some cases. contrasts neatly with Oh, cool! I can tell all the people I know that they’re not SJWs, because none of them are totalitarians! Perfect.
Perhaps you don’t know what a totalitarian is? My comment about dystopias in sci-fi seems prescient. Harrison Bergeron, like many sci-fi novels, is not to be treated as an instruction manual.”
Tell me: do you think the civil rights movement in this country was “totalitarian”? If not, would you not agree that some white people were not comfortable about it?
Come on; you take “it might not be comfortable for people” as “We’re going to strap weights to them and interrupt their thinking”? Going a tad over the top there. I was referring to the idea that, for example, you might not be able to presume that the main character in a show not specifically marked out as “women’s TV” or “black TV” or the like would be white, for example — or that the language in a book might not reflect the world you’re used to. Or that you might see two men walking fdown the street holding hands. For some people, that’s extremely uncomfortable — but hardly “totalitarian”.
I don’t know if I count as an SJW, but I’ll respond to bassmanco’s questions anyway.
If the Puppies (Rabid and Sad) are so wrong and the Hugo nominated work that is indicative of the best works of scifi are so good, why have sales at all houses not named Baen been dropping over the last ten or so years?
The Hugos were never intended to reward the best-selling SF stories; sales figures, after all, can speak for themselves, without any input from fans required. I see nothing illegitimate about a book selling a lot of copies but doing a poor job picking up rewards, or vice versa. And the authors of the Puppy lists must have felt the same way, because a lot of the stories they tout are hardly best-sellers.
Also, why have so many people been posting that they either a) hadn’t read scifi in a while because it had become preachy and boring or b) hadn’t had an opinion until they read MakingLight or some other SJW site and been disgusted by the tone and character assassination going on there?
I don’t know. Such people can speak for themselves, but…
(a) Personally, if I find a book to be boring, I stop reading it, and I look askance at other books by the same author; if a person whose opinion I trust tells me that a certain book is boring, I probably won’t pick it up in the first place. If enough other people share my opinion, then the boring author won’t sell many books, and non-boring authors will get more space on bookshelves. If other people buy books by an author that I personally consider boring, well, the author is entitled to their money. Sounds like capitalism at its finest.
(b) If you don’t like the tone of Making Light, don’t read it. If you think someone’s character is unfairly maligned there, there are plenty of forums where you can defend the victim. Sounds like free speech at its finest.
If SJWs are so tolerant (as they proclaim), why not let the message speak for itself instead of having to silence any dissent?
I am “tolerant” of other political views in the sense that I don’t want people arrested for expressing them. But I don’t feel any obligation to give those people an unlimited license to hold forth in my physical or electronic living room. I think both liberals and conservatives have the right to moderate their own blog-spaces as they see fit (within the limits of libel, copyright, and so forth); if you don’t like the moderation policy on one blog, you are free to set up your own. When I care about a message that has been proscribed from Making Light, I can find another place to read it. (I’m here, aren’t I?)
I don’t believe vintage SFF is conservative but the most ardent feminists and their supporters in SFF certainly do and don’t mind saying so:
“Kameron Hurley @KameronHurley 6h As long as we present SFF as stuff by/for folks like Asimov, Heinlein, Bester and Ellison, this isn’t going to happen. Will be fewer readers”
“Runy @runycat 6h @KameronHurley I would be fucking thrilled if folks could get over their weird Heinlein boners and move forward.”
“Ro Smith @Rhube 5h @KateElliottSFF @KameronHurley @gderekadams @runycat I’m now happy with chucking out ‘classics’ rife with misogyny, racism etc.”
*
“Crossed Genres @crossedgenres Dec 3 The ‘Golden Age’ of SFF contained absurd amounts of racism, sexism, etc. in its most revered works. So no, we wouldn’t publish those books…”
“Clarissa @wintersweet Dec 3 @crossedgenres Imagine how many lost/buried voices could have been published instead. I wouldn’t cry over losing some classics for them.”
*
“I know aliens in SFF started out as the equivalent of POC natives in a colonial narrative frame…” – Aliette de Bodard
“…that the main mythic story you find in science fiction, generally written by whites, ‘is going to a foreign culture and colonizing it.'” – io9 quoting Nalo Hopkinson
“reactionary stuffiness of so-called Golden Age SF.” – Jonathan McCalmont
Admin note: how did bassmanco and Shoemaker get crossed up in this fracas? Whoa. Martin’s one of Analog’s top new talents, and he’s a SP3 supporter. Just FYI.
I looked at the proposed new voter rules. Here is a de-complicated explanation.
1. Vote for as many titles as you wish, without limit, one vote per title.
2. The title with the most votes wins.
The points system mentioned in the SDE-LPV explanation has no bearing whatsoever on the winner, since at each stage, the title with the higher number of votes bubbles up to the top. It only affects the order of the runners-up. And to quote Charlie Brown, nobody ever remembers who came in second.
This item from James May’s catalogue of SJW horrors stood out to me:…
“I know aliens in SFF started out as the equivalent of POC natives in a colonial narrative frame…” – Aliette de Bodard
…because it’s true. Read the first chapter of War of the Worlds. Wells’s political message is about as subtle as a truncheon.
Sorry, let me amend that: in WotW the humans were the equivalent of colonized POC, and the Martians were the equivalent of the white colonizers. But I think a lot of “contact with aliens” SF stories observe the “colonial narrative frame” that de Bodard refers to, in one direction or another.
Tell me: do you think the civil rights movement in this country was “totalitarian”? If not, would you not agree that some white people were not comfortable about it?
You never did comment on my definition of Social Justice. For the sake of argument, I’ll accept that that definition is what we’re working with until you provide another one.
Social Justice: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society
You’re talking about wholesale redistribution of wealth and privilege in the name of ‘justice’, something that can only be accomplished by government fiat or outright revolution. I’m enough of a libertarian to know that that means force, one way or the other. (Civil RIghts, at least as practiced 1960s style, isn’t redistributive). Pretending that this is about what color or gender the book or TV character is is naive.
““Kameron Hurley @KameronHurley 6h As long as we present SFF as stuff by/for folks like Asimov, Heinlein, Bester and Ellison, this isn’t going to happen. Will be fewer readers””
Yes, because if we present SFF as a field whose apex was in the 1950s & 1960s, people will be less interested in it. Funny how that works.
Let’s take Bester: I *love* Bester, but I can also see how his treatment of women is *highly* problematic. I have to read him while reminding myself that he was, in many ways, a man of his time. Does that make him “conservative”? Not in the slightest. Does it make him, in some ways, outdated? Yes! Does it mean that I would think twice about recommending him, or recommend him with a caveat, to some readers? Yes. Has it stopped me? No.
It is possible to honor, and enjoy, an older writer while saying “Hey, we can do better than that now on these issues”.
“I know aliens in SFF started out as the equivalent of POC natives in a colonial narrative frame…” – Aliette de Bodard
Sorry, let me amend that: in WotW the humans were the equivalent of colonized POC, and the Martians were the equivalent of the white colonizers.
“It’s completely opposite, other than that it’s correct” is what you’re saying?
Mr Schwartz,
Perhaps it is you who do not know what totalitarianism is? We aren’t talking about simply making people “uncomfortable”. In fact it is funny that you might say that. Isn’t the concept of “safe zones” supposed to be about protection against being “uncomfortable”. I guess it’s not ok to make a radical feminist uncomfortable but it is ok (in fact it should be something to applauded) to make a straight white male uncomfortable.
I can see you ignored the liberation theology aspect of my post. Either because you agree with at least some tenants of liberation theology or you are too lazy to look up what exactly it is. If you take liberation theology to it’s natural end it would take a totalitarian state to enforce it. It leans heavily on “punishing” the oppressor.
I suspect, however, that it is much more simple than that. You want to have an argument over the definition of the word “totalitarian” rather than argue about the substance of what I said.
Civilis: Click “Post Comment” in haste, repent at leisure. 🙂
” Social Justice: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society
You’re talking about wholesale redistribution of wealth and privilege in the name of ‘justice’, something that can only be accomplished by government fiat or outright revolution. I’m enough of a libertarian to know that that means force, one way or the other. (Civil RIghts, at least as practiced 1960s style, isn’t redistributive). Pretending that this is about what color or gender the book or TV character is is naive.”
Then by your standards, I’m not an SJW. Unless, of course, raising income tax rates or having an estate tax is “wholesale redistribution of wealth”. Or trying to educate people about privilege is “government fiat”.
And it’s about gender in characters. It’s also about housing loan discrimination. It’s about all sorts of things, and the fact that you write some of them off as “not what it’s about” makes it easier to make it sound extreme, rather than a logical spectrum of positions. It *is* in its own way about making sure that my interracial kids (or anyone’s) can find kids’ books that reflect that they do, in fact, exist. They aren’t the only faces in kids’ books by a long shot, nor would I want them to be. But I want them to be there.
I suspect you agree with me on that point, for example. But that’s part of “social justice” too.
“Perhaps it is you who do not know what totalitarianism is? We aren’t talking about simply making people “uncomfortable”.”
*You* may not have been. I was. And so I pointed out that going from “People are going to be uncomfortable” to “you’re being totalitarian” was quite a leap.
“In fact it is funny that you might say that. Isn’t the concept of “safe zones” supposed to be about protection against being “uncomfortable”. I guess it’s not ok to make a radical feminist uncomfortable but it is ok (in fact it should be something to applauded) to make a straight white male uncomfortable.”
I should have guessed we’d need to explain this again. A safer space is an area carved out of the world at large for such a protection by an underpowered group. What you are asking for, apparently, is for the entire world to be “safer space” for the group that historically has held the vast majority of power. I hope you can see why this is a problem?
@Josh “.I can see you ignored the liberation theology aspect of my post. Either because you agree with at least some tenants of liberation theology or you are too lazy to look up what exactly it is. If you take liberation theology to it’s natural end it would take a totalitarian state to enforce it. It leans heavily on “punishing” the oppressor. ”
Because I do not think that an explicitly Christian worldview can be a fundamental part of a useful definition of a movement that allegedly contains so many non-Christians?
Civilis: Click “Post Comment” in haste, repent at leisure.
That was a cheap shot and I apologize for taking it.
On a more serious note, do you stand up for other classic authors when people on your side mischaracterize them in modern political terms?
Steven,
I *love* Bester, but I can also see how his treatment of women is *highly* problematic. I have to read him while reminding myself that he was, in many ways, a man of his time. Does that make him “conservative”? Not in the slightest. Does it make him, in some ways, outdated? Yes! Does it mean that I would think twice about recommending him, or recommend him with a caveat, to some readers? Yes. Has it stopped me? No.
Can you see how an observer of a different political ideology could view works like the Handmaid’s Tale as being highly problematic?
“But I think a lot of ‘contact with aliens’ SF stories observe the ‘colonial narrative frame’ that de Bodard refers to, in one direction or another.”
Nonsense, prove it. And she’s talking about one direction only.
Of the 48 stories chosen for the anthologies that make up The Science Fiction Hall of Fame (1970 & 1973) none are about conquering and colonizing analogues of indigenous peoples. Only nine stories have aliens at all.
This colonization stuff is all bullshit from people who’ve never read the stories and can’t make a case. SJWs are routinely full of bullshit. They make up this stuff to camouflage their own racial animus, as if anyone but SJWs are dumb enough to think they are actually anti-racists. They’re the worst racial bigots to ever enter the genre. What an amazing coincidence their remarks about whites are 100% negative. To find anything even remotely like themselves they simply lie about Golden Age SF like it was a Jim Crow.
SFWA member and SFF author and editor Carrie Cuinn in a Sept. 2013 post on her blog ludicrously states an even worse falsehood that there was “a time when SF writers hid their racism by attributing negative stereotypes to aliens instead of non-whites…”
How do you get that dumb? Let’s see these stories. They make that stuff up out of their heads. See white people, see racism. That’s their stupid reasoning.
*
“Yes, because if we present SFF as a field whose apex was in the 1950s & 1960s, people will be less interested in it. Funny how that works.”
That’s not what they meant and you know it. They have no trouble pumping Mary Shelley and early Joanna Russ or Delany. They were white and men and not gender feminists. That’s their big crime. The idea there were “issues” in the first place resides largely in your feminist head. And let’s just forget Hurley’s never written anything as remotely innovative as Bester’s “Fondly Fahrenheit” from 1954. So, exactly what is “modern”? Jack Vance’s To Live Forever from 1956 still puts most of these conformist feminists to shame. His Dying Earth is timeless.
McChuck: Your de-complicated explanation is a little too de-complicated.
1. A separate provision of the WSFS constitution limits voters to five candidates in each category at the nomination stage, so no, you cannot vote for as many titles you wish, without limit.
2. At each stage, a title with the lowest number of points is eliminated; the number of votes (i.e., the number of ballots naming a certain title) is only used as a tie-breaker when two or more titles have the same number of points. (Thus, if a 150 people have submitted ballots that say “Alpha, Bravo, Charlie”, and 51 have submitted ballots that say only “Delta”, then if all other factors are equal, Delta has a better chance of becoming a finalist.)
3. The purpose of the election at this stage is to choose five finalists in each category, so it absolutely does matter who gets to be first (and second and third and fourth) runner-up. Choosing the actual winner from among those finalists happens in the final vote, conducted using ranked ballots, which nobody is proposing to change right now.
Social. Justice. Warrior.
Of course it’s an epithet. Anyone calling himself that un-ironically is as ridiculous as those who call themselves “Brights”. It’s synonymous with “Poser,” and until recently, I hadn’t met any actual progressive activists who used the term to describe themselves, rather than (as I had seen it prior to the SP/RP dustup) used describe the kind of worthless tart who thinks #StopTheViolence is equivalent to volunteering at a women’s shelter.
Then by your standards, I’m not an SJW. Unless, of course, raising income tax rates or having an estate tax is “wholesale redistribution of wealth”. Or trying to educate people about privilege is “government fiat”.
Yes, actually those things are actually redistribution. So lets take the next steps. What happens when you take more money from the “rich” and give it to an “oppressed” class for education.
1.) you are using the power of the state to take from one person. If they refuse to pay men with guns will eventually show up at their residence.
2.) If the “oppressed” classes gets their education paid for over the period of lets say 4 decades and there is still not a significant change in outcomes what are you going to propose society do next to help the “oppressed” class?
It’s also about housing loan discrimination.
How is possible that the banks engaged in “predatory lending” against minorities and simultaneously refused loans to minorities? Are you saying that banks are so racist that they purposely approved loans to minorities that they knew they couldn’t pay them back and then at the same time found minorities that did have the ability to pay the loans back and refused loans to them?
Martin L. Shoemaker, I apologize profusely. I saw your comment and misinterpreted it as another SJW attempt to move the goalposts and ask for something that has been repeated quite a bit. I should not have let my frustration with those who will lie and willfully see facts that are not in evidence or ignore the facts that are in evidence.
Again, my mistake and I hope you accept my apology.
bossmanco, I accept your gracious apology. Mistakes happen.
And I apologize for responding in kind. Sometimes I do that to try to get a point across.
And it’s about gender in characters. It’s also about housing loan discrimination. It’s about all sorts of things, and the fact that you write some of them off as “not what it’s about” makes it easier to make it sound extreme, rather than a logical spectrum of positions. It *is* in its own way about making sure that my interracial kids (or anyone’s) can find kids’ books that reflect that they do, in fact, exist. They aren’t the only faces in kids’ books by a long shot, nor would I want them to be. But I want them to be there.
That’s part of the problem with tagging along with a larger ideology; you’re able to see the subtle differences while we have to deal with the generic at times and I’m sure the same holds true in reverse. It’s great that you want to see your values reflected in the world at large, but it has to come with respecting that the rest of us expect the same thing. Just about all of these values come with tradeoffs with other values which are equally important to someone. Your care about housing loan discrimination, for example, is just as valid as someone concerned that we’re setting people up for failure by making loans to easy to get for people, and for every minority denied a loan that deserves one, there may be one looking at bankruptcy because they were encouraged to take a loan they couldn’t afford.
I should have guessed we’d need to explain this again. A safer space is an area carved out of the world at large for such a protection by an underpowered group. What you are asking for, apparently, is for the entire world to be “safer space” for the group that historically has held the vast majority of power. I hope you can see why this is a problem?
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence! Based on the differing life expectancies, men are the underpowered group! (*tongue firmly in cheek*) Seriously, on a college campus today, what makes you think women are the underpowered group? Unlike Ms “I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender”, you’ve admitted that privilege is a relative term.
We’ll take the sci-fi approach. I’m a explorer landing on a planet with multiple different colors of aliens (orange, green, blue, and purple). How do I tell the privilege from observation? As a warning, there’s an old joke about cars being the dominant life form in the planet as observed from space. I’m going to use that as one of the test cases.
Mr. Shoemaker, no worries. In fact, I think it was because your reply was tied to one of my other replies that I was so quick to anger. Need to work on that.
“Can you see how an observer of a different political ideology could view works like the Handmaid’s Tale as being highly problematic?”
Absolutely. But there’s a reason that “problematic” is a different word than “bad”. 🙂 People read problematic books all the time. Heck; if “The Demolished Man” hadn’t been written when it was, and was published now, I’d be annoyed at the author for his sexism, but I would still admire the book for its accomplishment; indeed, I strongly suspect it’d make my Hugo nominations list.
@James May: “That’s not what they meant and you know it.”
Why, thank you for so politely calling me a deliberate liar. I do believe that is the correct interpretation of the quote in question: that *if* SFF was treated as “works by and for the audience of a set of writers from a given time” that SFF would lose its relevance and its readers — just as, for example, opera has lost many of its listeners.
“And let’s just forget Hurley’s never written anything as remotely innovative as Bester’s “Fondly Fahrenheit” from 1954.”
Ah — I must remember: James May believes that in order to be a critic, one must be as innovative as the writers one critiques. This is going to *vastly* cut down on the field of SF criticism — lucky I can keep my Delany and Disch.
“So, exactly what is “modern”? Jack Vance’s To Live Forever from 1956 still puts most of these conformist feminists to shame. His Dying Earth is timeless.”
And there’s a lot of work from back then that is, and reasonably so, forgotten. Going “This snapshot of right now does not stand up to the entire history of the genre!” is, well, rhetorically dishonest and, as a worldview, going to keep you in a constant state of disappointment.
“Yes, actually those things are actually redistribution.”
OK. If you’re going to divide the world into “extreme libertarians” and “SJWs” — or is it “totalitarians” — then we can just leave this discussion here, as you’ve rendered the last two terms utterly useless; and if you feel that raising a tax is “redistribution”, it’s pretty clear into which camp you fall.
” Your care about housing loan discrimination, for example, is just as valid as someone concerned that we’re setting people up for failure by making loans to easy to get for people, and for every minority denied a loan that deserves one, there may be one looking at bankruptcy because they were encouraged to take a loan they couldn’t afford. ”
Actually, it fits quite neatly together: minorities were regularly refused loans on houses in certain neighborhoods, and refused access to lower interest rate loans; as a result, they had to pay *more* for the same amount of “collateral”, and, as a result, when things started going bad, they were more affected. Follows quite neatly from the basic presumption.
As to your observer from space: If they looked at, say, “treatment of people by the law enforcement of their own species”, they’d come to the conclusion that there were some groups that were to be shot at the drop of a hat, and other groups that were to be treated with great care. Just to pick one example that a competent alien observer might notice.
Of course, after saying “Take me to your leaders!” in the U.S., and observing the disproportion of the ratio of the leaders to the led, that might give them another clue.
If they open a history book, and apply their “race-and-gender” detecting algorithms, they’d come to a similar conclusion.
Or, of course, they’d decide that white males are clearly, overwhelmingly, superior in a huge number of areas — and come across as, well, massively racist and sexist. So: do you wish to accept the “privilege” explanation, which doesn’t involve making serious biological judgments, and which can be made without moral opprobrium (because being privileged isn’t being evil — *abusing* said privilege is a different matter), or do you want to go for the “massive racial and sexual differences that, suddenly, appear to be vanishing for no detectable biological reason” explanation?
Ken, I’ve read “The Hot Equations.” The only problem for me, personally, is that all or most of it was hashed over in the 70’s if not before. Nonetheless, whether anyone chooses to vote for it or not, I categorically recommend they buy and read it because a lot of you tadpoles weren’t HERE in the 70’s and yours is a very useful collection of observations for today’s reader and aspiring writer. Thanks for writing it.
Mr. Schwartz,
Finally the dismissal. You ignore the logic, you ignore the points and you boil things down to labels and phrasing debates. The reason you are letting the argument go is because words like “raising income taxes” or “paying for education” are to a purpose of redistribution but you refuse to admit it. You are implying redistribution without saying it.
Lets play your game though, I will say that the simple act of raising taxes is not redistribution. However you implied that you were going to use those taxes to educate people at which point it becomes redistribution. You took money from one person used it to benefit a specific person not everyone in society.
Let’s suppose that is not what you were saying. The real question comes in when I say “for what purpose did you raise these taxes?” Are you raising taxes for raising taxes sake? I doubt it. So please do enlighten me as to what you are planning to do with the increased taxes?
Steven, how racist, provincial and speciesist of you to assume that visiting alien would even have genders remotely like ours and be prepared to scan for them! How insular, I say!
How is possible that the banks engaged in “predatory lending” against minorities and simultaneously refused loans to minorities? Are you saying that banks are so racist that they purposely approved loans to minorities that they knew they couldn’t pay them back and then at the same time found minorities that did have the ability to pay the loans back and refused loans to them?
In Boston during the late 1960s, it worked like this: Banks issued government-insured loans to African-Americans who bought houses within certain Boston neighborhoods, appraising those houses at far above their market value, and were happy to issue such mortgages to borrowers who were objectively bad credit risks; when the borrowers defaulted on the loans, the banks cashed in on the government’s guarantee, so they lost nothing. Those same banks refused to issue loans to African-Americans who wanted to buy housing elsewhere, even if the would-be borrowers had enough income that they could afford the payments. For details, see the book Death of an American Jewish Community.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, on his blog, has described a different scheme, which operated in Chicago: A bank would hold the deed to a house and offer what was called “contract selling”. The buyer would agree to make payments over a period of years, and after the term of the contract ended, the buyer would get the deed. Like a homeowner, the buyer would be fully responsible for the cost of repairs to the house (and for the houses that these buyers were stuck with, there was often a lot that needed repair). Like a tenant, if the buyer missed a single payment, they could be evicted, and would be left without any equity; the bank could then repeat the maneuver with a new family.
In both cases, speculators played on the racism of white homeowners to buy white-owned houses cheaply, and when reselling those houses to African-Americans, they took advantage of the fact that the African-Americans had limited housing options in order to jack up the price.
@schwartz you are replying to at least three or four questions and you may not get to this and that’s fine if so. To your question on whether I’m comfortable using the same yardstick against either John or Bob Heinlein that I apply to Delaney, why yes.
I’m not particularly a fan of Wright. I’m not sure why being comfortable with using him as a negative reference makes me a hypocrite (since I’ve never referenced him before, but thanks for the preemptive name calling, I will return the favor at the end of my comment), but whatever floats your boat.
I do have a big problem with the states like New Hampshire saying the age of 13 is ok for marriage for a girl or 14 for a boy. It is absurd and should not be permitted. I have not been able to find any recent cases where that law has been implemented for the purposes of allowing a 13 year old to wed anyone with or without parental consent. I suspect it is an archaic law left on the books much like the requirements that I stop my horse drawn buggy 100 yards before intersection while driving in California. In other words, your example is a red herring. Poorly played, sir.
I can distinguish between Bob Heinlein’s characters having suspiciously close relationships with other characters who appear to be of child age and the very clear, repeated on the record statements (see Shetterly’s blog) by Delaney. If you can’t agree that sex with minors is wrong and a fundamental flaw in a proponent’s character that should disqualify them for public adulation in their professional field then we really lack the basis for communication. Sex with kids is rape. It really is as black and white that. I am shocked (unironically) that someone who accepts the label SJW could find any other interpretation.
(as to the preemptive insult…)
If you feel otherwise, welcome to Hypocrisy-ville, Mayor the Right Honorable Stephen Schwartz.
@ Schwartz
““extreme libertarians” and “SJWs” — or is it “totalitarians””
Again totalitarian is only a piece of the definition do please trotting that one term I used in the larger argument while ignoring the larger points. It shows you are in no way willing to even attempt to defend the main tenants of the overall ideology you are claiming doesn’t exist while simultaneously trying to defend. This is the third time I will point out that you refuse to touch the Liberation Theology (again a very well documented and defined term) aspect I pointed out.
Or, of course, they’d decide that white males are clearly, overwhelmingly, superior in a huge number of areas — and come across as, well, massively racist and sexist. So: do you wish to accept the “privilege” explanation, which doesn’t involve making serious biological judgments, and which can be made without moral opprobrium (because being privileged isn’t being evil — *abusing* said privilege is a different matter), or do you want to go for the “massive racial and sexual differences that, suddenly, appear to be vanishing for no detectable biological reason” explanation?
I don’t have time to give your comment the full refutation it deserves. You show you biases so well, ironically, the same biases as Scalzi. And you didn’t answer my question at all.
“Mr. Schwartz,
Finally the dismissal. You ignore the logic, you ignore the points and you boil things down to labels and phrasing debates.”
Considering that I began engaging with you when you tried to define a term…
More specificaly, I’ve learned that there are people with whom a discussion just isn’t worth it; I no longer argue beyond pointing to a few links with young-earth Creationists, and after a few exchanges I give up on the diehard “I can prove God doesn’t exist” atheists, because I have been there and done that and it wastes my time and it annoys…well, you know the rest of the line, I suspect. 😉
“The reason you are letting the argument go is because words like “raising income taxes” or “paying for education” are to a purpose of redistribution but you refuse to admit it. You are implying redistribution without saying it.”
I do not believe a civilized society should let some of its members live in ridiculous wealth while others starve for reasons beyond their control. And I do not believe that rights to property always trump basic human rights. Do I want to ensure everyone has the same amount? No. Do I want to ensure that everyone has *enough*? Yes.
And if that marks me out as believing in redistribution, so be it. I feel it also marks me out as believing in civilization and human dignity.
“However you implied that you were going to use those taxes to educate people at which point it becomes redistribution. You took money from one person used it to benefit a specific person not everyone in society.”
1) You took the fact that the two statements were next to each other as signs they were linked. They weren’t, and I’ll clarify that here for you. If *I* try and educate people on the way privilege works, of my own free will and with no government support, I do not consider that being part of a “totalitarian” system — just as I do not think that having taxes implies totalitarianism.
2) I’m one of those weird people who believes we’re *all* better off when the world is better educated.
“Let’s suppose that is not what you were saying. The real question comes in when I say “for what purpose did you raise these taxes?” Are you raising taxes for raising taxes sake? I doubt it. So please do enlighten me as to what you are planning to do with the increased taxes?”
Improving the lot of society as a whole. Preventing bridges from falling down, for example. Increasing research that will help the human race get to the stars. Lots of things. 🙂
The big problem with the “one vote spread across many books” proposal is that it fails the most important requirement of any voting system. It must be understandable to the voter. If they can’t understand how the votes are counted, especially how _their_ vote was counted, then they can’t trust that the results are real.
“Are you saying that banks are so racist that they purposely approved loans to minorities that they knew they couldn’t pay them back and then at the same time found minorities that did have the ability to pay the loans back and refused loans to them?”
In the 50’s thru 80’s, as many black families climbed the economic scale, yes, this happened quite a bit. They could get a loan for certain neighborhoods, but not others.
Banks were accused of being racist in the 90’s because they weren’t generating as many loans to minorities in many cities, but when the banks pointed out it was an applicants credit worthiness and not their race that drove those decisions, that’s when the Federal Government stepped in with the trial program that had Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae guarantee the loans, which in turn led to banks everywhere being able to loan money to people who were never going to be able to repay those loans. Which was one of the cornerstone faults of the 2008 market crash.
I was an appraiser back then. Some of the machinations going on then were just…mind boggling.
@ratseal:
“I’m not particularly a fan of Wright. I’m not sure why being comfortable with using him as a negative reference makes me a hypocrite (since I’ve never referenced him before, but thanks for the preemptive name calling, I will return the favor at the end of my comment), but whatever floats your boat.”
Clearly, I was not clear. 🙂
I have seen people on the Puppy side pitch a fit at the notion that, say, citing John C. Wright meant that they were losing credibility — just as you stated my citing Delany was supposedly causing me to “lose credibility”.
If you object to that, then you are allowing one side to say “Hey, you agree with person (x) who holds view I find distasteful (z), therefore you have no credibility!” but not the other side, which would be hypocritical.
If you don’t, then we’re fine.
“I do have a big problem with the states like New Hampshire saying the age of 13 is ok for marriage for a girl or 14 for a boy. It is absurd and should not be permitted.”
Then by all means, attempt to convince New Hampshire. If they do not, will you then argue that no one from New Hampshire who does not disavow said law is a reputable source on anything?
“I can distinguish between Bob Heinlein’s characters having suspiciously close relationships with other characters who appear to be of child age and the very clear, repeated on the record statements (see Shetterly’s blog) by Delaney.”
I’m sure you can; I’m sure you want to. Whether said is justified or not is a different question.
“If you can’t agree that sex with minors is wrong and a fundamental flaw in a proponent’s character that should disqualify them for public adulation in their professional field then we really lack the basis for communication.”
Apparently we do. Because to me, a) Delany’s position is more nuanced than you claim — a nuance you are quite willing to grant, say, Heinlein, but not Delany, and b) I don’t think, for example, we should take away Shockley’s Nobel Prize in physics because he went on to be a bigot and a fool in biology.
“Sex with kids is rape. It really is as black and white that.”
I am curious as to the magical change that happens on someone’s 18th birthday. Seriously — if you’re claiming it’s “as black and white as that” then you’re saying there’s that magical change. Unless you’d care to define “kids” much more specifically — in which case, you’re not in accordance with the law, any more.
“I am shocked (unironically) that someone who accepts the label SJW could find any other interpretation.”
Here’s a clue: the label is worthless, because, for example, it could be applied to radical gender-essentialist feminists, diehard Trotskyists, anarcho-socialists, GLBTQ liberationists, etc. Any label that can contain and expects similar results from Andrea Dworkin and Chip Delany is uselessly broad, save perhaps that they both fit in the biological species Homo Sapiens, and both resided in roughly the same part of the globe. Of course, that also does not differentiate them from Donald Trump. 🙂
“This is the third time I will point out that you refuse to touch the Liberation Theology (again a very well documented and defined term) aspect I pointed out.”
And this will be the second time I point out that if Liberation Theology is a key part of your definition of SJWs, then you’re leaving out a large number of atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc., etc., and so forth.
@Civilis: ” How do I tell the privilege from observation?”
I gave you multiple examples of clear power dimorphism — and then let you choose your explanation for them. One requires a social effect, the other a biological effect that suddenly drastically diminished for no readily apparent reason.
That social effect comes from the indicators of privilege.
First they came for Correia and Torgersen.
And I said nothing, because I was ignorant of what was going on.
Then they came for GamerGate, because they wanted a narrative other than “Larry and Brad worked effectively within the system”.
And I took notice, because I was a GamerGate member and knew the Hugos had had virtually no GGers voting in them, because like me they were almost entirely ignorant of what was going on.
Then they came for Vox Day, because low-hanging fruit and guilt-by-association
And I stood up and said “I’ve already put in my Supporting Membership, because your idiocy has mobilized me to do so, and you’re only making me angrier with your made-up bullshit.”
Then they said they were thinking of changing the rules for who can vote on the Hugos.
And now I’ve decided I will be attending in person if necessary to vote, and joining committees if necessary to vote, and pulling out every stop likewise needed to ensure the Hugos remain a democratic fan-selected meritocracy.
Because seriously, fuck Fascism.
I gave you multiple examples of clear power dimorphism — and then let you choose your explanation for them. One requires a social effect, the other a biological effect that suddenly drastically diminished for no readily apparent reason.
Ok, but you cherry picked your examples. Let’s go back to our colorful martians. Let’s say I observe the following: If blue martians kill blue martians, nothing special happens. If green martians kill green martians, nothing special happens. If blue martians kill green martians, nothing special happens. If green martians kill blue martians, the green martian is ritually sacrificed to the blue elders. In this case, the blue martians have a relative privilege.
Or we could go with the following: Green martians sometimes treat blue martians badly. We observe that green martians don’t treat purple martians badly, even when they look almost blue. Further, oddly enough, some blue martians, those that grew up in blue-dominated societies are treated the same as the green martians in green-dominated societies. We can conclude that this isn’t a simple case of green martian prejudice towards blue martians, and that simplistic green / blue privilege models do not actively model this situation and need to be reconsidered.
There is one more, and fascinating observation, and it concerns one of our observers. He was able to view the entire planet, and purple martians are the majority of all martians, yet all his observations were entirely in terms of blue and green martians. What does this tell us about the one observer?
Arguing over definitions? Man, the anti-Puppies have even less than I thought.
” Christopher M. Chupik says:
May 14, 2015 at 4:00 pm
Arguing over definitions? Man, the anti-Puppies have even less than I thought.”
What would you like to debate about? 😉 I’m debating with one person abotu definitions because, well, they defined a term and I disagreed with the usefulness of their definitions.
“Ok, but you cherry picked your examples.”
You asked for possible observations: I gave you some. How this is “cherry-picking” I fail to see.
As for your martians, you can concoct whatever hypotheticals you like — linking them back to the real world would be rather more useful. Otherwise, we can continue going back and forth with hypotheticals about non-existent beings until the cows come home.
“What does this tell us about the one observer?”
That he doesn’t recognize purple as a color, perhaps. Which does not say that purple doesn’t exist, or is not an important description of a concept to the Martians. Your point being? (In that light, have you read Mike Ford’s story “Chromatic Aberration”? It’s a very interesting read.)
(Indeed, along those lines: What if we discover that gradually, more and more wavelengths are defined as “green”, while the behavioral implications remain the same?)
I do not believe a civilized society should let some of its members live in ridiculous wealth while others starve for reasons beyond their control. And I do not believe that rights to property always trump basic human rights. Do I want to ensure everyone has the same amount? No. Do I want to ensure that everyone has *enough*? Yes.
Considering we live in a society where everyone has enough and no one starves for reasons beyond their control, then you’re welcome. All those Social Justice types can go home! And the only reason we’re at that point is that we recognize that property rights are basic rights, and any society where they are not will eventually be one where some people starve while others, often the ones going around promising how they will be the ones to fix things and bring justice to the poor, live in ridiculous wealth.
Damn the law of Unforeseen Consequences! We couldn’t possibly have foreseen that it would come into play!
“Then they said they were thinking of changing the rules for who can vote on the Hugos.”
Actually, most of the discussion I’ve seen hasn’t been about “who can vote”, but rather “How are votes counted to reduce the power of slate voting?”, which is a very different question.
Arguing definitions seems to be the thing I’ve noticed. Debating with a pair of anti-Puppies on Twitter last night we also got bogged down in defining “slate”. One of them said “Live by the slate, die by the slate”. When I pointed out Aidan Moher has suggested Hugo nomination slates, using that very word I threw the “live by the slate” remark back at the guy who made it. They quickly changed their minds and said it wasn’t slates they were concerned about, it was bloc-voting. mentioned that there was nothing forcing SP3 voters to vote just for what was on the slate. Then one of them blocked me and the other went quiet.
“SJW” is not a worthless label in SFF, comics or video games. They are not Trotskyites, socialists or anarchists. They are what they talk about, and what they talk about is uniform to an amazing degree – race/gender – that’s it.
That’s pretty ironic coming from a guy who claimed that the literal dictionary definition of a word was invalid because certain commentators on the statement couldn’t make a case using it…
“Considering we live in a society where everyone has enough and no one starves for reasons beyond their control, then you’re welcome.”
Would that that were actually true. Or are you going to assert that all of the homeless on the streets (many of whom are starving) or malnourished children (who do exist) are all responsible for their circumstance? I certainly hope not.
“And the only reason we’re at that point is that we recognize that property rights are basic rights”
Subject, I hope you’d agree, to limits — just as almost all rights are.
You asked for possible observations: I gave you some. How this is “cherry-picking” I fail to see.
I asked for methodology, not made-up observations. We want an objective method for gathering data, not anecdotes. As I said: How do I tell the privilege from observation? The whole point about looking at methodology is to identify a comparative measure of privilege where two different observers come to two different conclusions.
I think you’re working backwards. You’re sure you know what the answer is, so you don’t need to actually go and try to look. You didn’t answer my question about whether women or men are more privileged at college, after all. You’re so blindly sure you refuse to even consider the possibility that you missed something; that things are more complicated than the simple model that is necessary for the conclusions you’ve already drawn.
Why, looking at America, would anyone talk about race entirely in terms of black and white?
“SJW” is not a worthless label in SFF, comics or video games. They are not Trotskyites, socialists or anarchists. They are what they talk about, and what they talk about is uniform to an amazing degree – race/gender – that’s it.”
Wow. Then I truly have never seen any of these mythical beasts; perhaps they are hanging out with the unicorns.
As I said: if your system would put Andrea Dworkin and Chip Delany in the same box, you’ve got a *very* strange system here.
“Why, looking at America, would anyone talk about race entirely in terms of black and white?”
No one sophisticated would. Which is why, for example, the often-mocked term PoC is often used. 🙂
If you want a methodology to test for privilege, then let’s go back to the one I proposed: When, controlling for as many other factors as possible (since these are aliens, we can’t know what they’re controlling for), there exists an otherwise inexplicable difference between group X’s outcomes and group Y’s. Especially when said difference is in favor of group X, when the historical power imbalance is also in favor of group X.
Thus, for example, the “same resume with different names” test.
This test will miss some things that people blame on privilege, because aliens wouldn’t think to run the tests — until, perhaps, they’d been informed of the symptoms, and gone looking for it.
” You didn’t answer my question about whether women or men are more privileged at college, after all.”
Because you appear to want Hard Data, and guess what? It’s not there. I know what the situation *was*, and I have ample anecdotal and experimental data on one side, but I’m trying to be even-handed and careful here. I know which side I’d bet on, certainly — but I’m not prepared to make a solid statement given the level of challenge such an answer is likely to face. 🙂 I prefer to stand on solid ground.
Would that that were actually true. Or are you going to assert that all of the homeless on the streets (many of whom are starving) or malnourished children (who do exist) are all responsible for their circumstance? I certainly hope not.
Well, we did put a lot of formerly institutionalized people on the street in the name of civil rights, so there is a small group that can’t be held responsible, but that’s not easy to fix without stepping on someone’s rights. Certainly throwing more money at the problem won’t address the actual issues regarding poverty in America today. And you’ve not addressed the fact that the act of central control in the name of ‘economic justice’ invariably makes poverty worse. There’s that nasty law of Unintended Consequences again!
Subject, I hope you’d agree, to limits — just as almost all rights are.
What limits? If I don’t like your rights, can I limit them at will? As long as I’m not infringing on your rights (and since it’s my property, I’m not) why should you have control over me? If you claim control over me, why can’t I claim control over you?
@Steve Schwartz Let me keep it super simple for you.
Delaney: “Sex with kids is ok sometimes. I had sex when I was nine. SEE!”
Me: “Delaney, you are a piece of shit. Organizations that honor you have no legitimacy.”
Schwartz: “Aw, cut him some slack. He wrote the good words. So many words!”
Me: “All my nopes. Sex with children bad. All of the bads.”
Schwartz: “Children? What children? 18yo ok? Yes, OK! 17yo +364 days ok? Yes, OK!” … (keep subtracting days one at a time because poor Rat no can do math till we get to…) “9yo ok? Why yes, 9yo OK!”
Me: “Still all of the nopes. Also, you needs to get the helps, ‘Mr. 9yo sexytime’ is ok!”
Seriously, you are so admiring of his writing that you can overlook his non theoretical position that kids can give informed consent to sex with adults while in single digit age bracket? What the actual fuck? Shouldn’t a person who is a multiple time panelist at Wiscon have a little more concern about adult men preying on underage kids? I thought that shit was a given, and an area where I could find some otherwise scarce common fucking ground with the organizers of the race and sex based exclusion zones at the con.
Go on, hide behind some rhetorical device you fuckwit. I am happy to own that insult – any informed adult that is prepared to explain that kind of shit away needs to be kept away from all kids, period fucking dot. If you elect to own the apologia needed to enjoy and endorse his success, I sure as hell earnestly hope that you are not a parent.
Delaney might hope that you are, though.
“Certainly throwing more money at the problem won’t address the actual issues regarding poverty in America today.”
How can you be so sure? We’ve never tried, for example, a guaranteed basic income in this country.
“And you’ve not addressed the fact that the act of central control in the name of ‘economic justice’ invariably makes poverty worse.”
Because it’s not a fact. There are examples of it. Of course, there are also examples complicated by, say, long-standing ongoing external wars, or economic boycotts, etc. It’s an article of faith.
“What limits? If I don’t like your rights, can I limit them at will? As long as I’m not infringing on your rights (and since it’s my property, I’m not) why should you have control over me? If you claim control over me, why can’t I claim control over you?”
Oh good grief. Sometimes I feel like it’s not worth even trying to be the slightest bit conciliatory, because all it gets is someone flying further off the deep end.
So long as you live in a state with a death penalty, there are almost no absolute rights. There are limits to the right to life (execution), freedom of movement (try walking into the White House or Fort Meade without an invitation), freedom of ownership (you can’t own slaves, for example), freedom of speech, etc., etc., and so forth. The limits that we need so that we can each co-exist with each other. Do you not agree that those are not unreasonable limits? The only “rights” we can claim as absolute are the ones that are utterly unenforceable — freedom of thought, for example.
A note to other folks that elected to engage this fucking concern troll from Wiscon and the land of pedo apologists – you are wasting your time. He is just taking the piss, endlessly, and gleefully.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the death penalty only applies to people who have actually MURDERED other people. And forget about the White House, try walking into any citizen’s home without their permission. Why should that be allowed, because you want it so therefore you should be able to do what you want?
“Seriously, you are so admiring of his writing that you can overlook his non theoretical position that kids can give informed consent to sex with adults while in single digit age bracket?”
Hm. From the citation you “gave” above, it was that he felt *he* consented at a certain age.
But more to the point: We have Hugo nominees this year who have asserted their right to shoot people of differing political views as pre-emptive self defense. We have Hugo winners who assert that half the U.S. population is influenced by Satan. Do they defame and discredit the Hugos?
Once upon a time voicing the opinion that God did not exist could get you killed, let alone discredited with all and sundry.
Do I think a person can be very wrong about one thing, and right about a bunch of others? Why, yes, I do.
And do I believe that someone saying “X is possible” means that they think “X is always true, and I intend to act that way?” No, I do not.
“What the actual fuck? Shouldn’t a person who is a multiple time panelist at Wiscon have a little more concern about adult men preying on underage kids? I thought that shit was a given, and an area where I could find some otherwise scarce common fucking ground with the organizers of the race and sex based exclusion zones at the con.”
Again — by the above standard, shall we exclude one of the Hugo nominees from any convention, on the grounds that he might shoot someone he disagrees with politically?
“Go on, hide behind some rhetorical device you fuckwit. I am happy to own that insult – any informed adult that is prepared to explain that kind of shit away needs to be kept away from all kids, period fucking dot. If you elect to own the apologia needed to enjoy and endorse his success, I sure as hell earnestly hope that you are not a parent.”
Your hope is dashed, I fear.
Of course, I also know Chip, and know that he is a man who would rather undergo a great deal of suffering on his own part than inflict it on others.
Because you appear to want Hard Data, and guess what? It’s not there. I know what the situation *was*, and I have ample anecdotal and experimental data on one side, but I’m trying to be even-handed and careful here. I know which side I’d bet on, certainly — but I’m not prepared to make a solid statement given the level of challenge such an answer is likely to face. 🙂 I prefer to stand on solid ground.
Strange, you seem to be standing on thin air everywhere else. 😎
If you want a methodology to test for privilege, then let’s go back to the one I proposed: When, controlling for as many other factors as possible (since these are aliens, we can’t know what they’re controlling for), there exists an otherwise inexplicable difference between group X’s outcomes and group Y’s. Especially when said difference is in favor of group X, when the historical power imbalance is also in favor of group X.
So, I can look at, say SAT scores required for college admission, and find that African-Americans are admitted with lower scores than Whites, and Whites are admitted with lower scores than Asians, therefore, in this case, it’s logical to assume African-Americans have a privilege that Whites do not, and Whites have a privilege that Asians do not? All else being equal, poor African Americans are definitely underprivileged, but the beneficiaries for a while have been the African Americans that escaped the poverty trap.
I can also look at social research data and see that bias in political differences is significantly greater than racial bias (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/), so if I find that one ideology, say, is vastly underrepresented in academia, it’s safe for me to assume that the other ideology is greatly privileged? Especially since that ideology has a history of being the recipient of past privilege…
“Intersectionalism” is basically radical gay feminism with a racial kicker.
John Scalzi, Jaymee Goh, K. Tempest Bradford, N. K. Jemisin, Damien Walter and many others in SFF have publicly referred to what they do using that term and even linked us to PDFs and sites which explain exactly what it is. Here is the PDF Scalzi linked to:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2287303
The term “SJW” came about because it describes the alliance of the radical who claim to be directly affected by these oppressions and the radical chic – especially male “feminists” – who take them on by proxy.
*
And Schwartz, like all pedants, you’re getting hung up on these labels. They are indicators, not a thing carved in rock with absolute hard edges. Any fool knows that about politicized labels in the first place.
SJW and intersectionalism are new and evolving. There is no reason to grasp every last person and put them somewhere. However, like Delany (and Simone de Beauvoir and her “Front de libération des Pédophiles”), Dworkin believed in the liberation of the sexuality of children.
“Children are fully capable of participating in community, and have every right to live out their own erotic impulses.” – Andrea Dworkin
This is not MY system. I am telling you how some people describe themselves and what they do. They don’t have fucking I.D.’s. What they do all have in common is the idea of gender-fluidity, and sometimes that extends to kids and incest. I think Judith Butler uses the word “incest” in her book Gender Trouble about 70 times. Try reading it and you won’t look so clueless.
If you were as anxious to read up on this stuff as you were to discuss it I wouldn’t have to explain every last damn thing to you while you pretend you got me in some perceptual trap. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and that’s obvious. Stop typing and start reading.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but the death penalty only applies to people who have actually MURDERED other people. And forget about the White House, try walking into any citizen’s home without their permission. Why should that be allowed, because you want it so therefore you should be able to do what you want?”
Actually, there are multiple crimes for which the death penalty can be assessed, in the U.S., that are not for murder.
” Why should that be allowed, because you want it so therefore you should be able to do what you want?”
You appear to mistake me: I don’t think it should be allowed; I argued that it was a reasonable restriction of an oft-claimed right to freedom of movement. I was the one arguing that there were valid limits to rights.
“Then I truly have never seen any of these mythical beasts; perhaps they are hanging out with the unicorns.”
And yet, they are exceptionally prevalent in the “social justice” movement. It is only within that movement where I hear that speech must be curtailed because it offends, that people must be excluded from activities on basis of their skin color or gender, that wealth should be confiscated because its existence is somehow unfair, and all against the backdrop of a never-ending litany of hair-splitting justifications.
No one should have a problem with the Hugos having more voters and more inclusivity than in years past, but I have already seen various conspiracy theories floated to deride exactly that. What I primarily see from opponents of Sad Puppies, and even of Rabid Puppies, is an overarching fear of a Right-Wing Racism Anti-LGBT Boogeyman — to such extent, that people in decades-long mixed-race marriages have been accused of “shielding racism” behind those relationships.
It seems that some people just find Puppies very triggering.
@Schwartz
“And this will be the second time I point out that if Liberation Theology is a key part of your definition of SJWs, then you’re leaving out a large number of atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc., etc., and so forth.”
Look a little closer into Liberation Theology beyond the top line definition. Parts of it definitely have Christian aspects but as I stated the tenants are shared between other “SJWs” across the spectrum of religions or non-religions. The fundamental boils down to western civilization is an oppressor civilization that needs to be punished. The only real theology aspect of the belief system is that God is on their side. The atheists believe that “right” is on their side and Muslims believe that “Allah” is on their side.
As for the rest I am afraid you are correct it is not going to be productive. You are going to continue to label me “extreme” or not participating in human civilization (an irony coming from someone against labels, and note I have yet to label you personally as anything.) because I believe that providing for people through means outside of the government is a better system.
Schwartz does seem to be ped-apologizing and just trolling for the sake of being contrary. He offers no facts or quotes, contributes nothing, is ignorant of the subject at hand, uses bizarre airy comparisons and just seems to argue bullshit for reasons no one but he knows.
How can you be so sure? We’ve never tried, for example, a guaranteed basic income in this country.
(Not a serious suggestion; exaggeration for effect for the humor-impared): Why don’t you try flying by jumping off a building? It might work this time! Seriously, I’m actually open to a guaranteed basic income as being a cheaper approach than the hodgepodge we have now, but I know that some people will be unable to manage on such a system. You won’t have completely solved the problem, because humans are human, and no system can be perfect. At some point, the cost exceeds the benefit.
Oh good grief. Sometimes I feel like it’s not worth even trying to be the slightest bit conciliatory, because all it gets is someone flying further off the deep end.
It looks comfortable down there; I thought I would join you. Seriously, when you talk about arbitrarily limiting rights without some limit to how much you are willing to go, it’s open to abuse. Talking about the tiny handful of people in dire straights under the current situation is at least as much an exaggeration as my complaints about the ends one can reach when one is willing to limit rights just a little for the “greater good” (of those desiring to limit rights).
But more to the point: We have Hugo nominees this year who have asserted their right to shoot people of differing political views as pre-emptive self defense. We have Hugo winners who assert that half the U.S. population is influenced by Satan. Do they defame and discredit the Hugos?
Exact quotes please. (Firmly tongue in cheek) And what’s wrong with being influenced by Satan? Besides, any good Christian knows that everyone is tempted by evil and sin… it’s in the description.
“So, I can look at, say SAT scores required for college admission, and find that African-Americans are admitted with lower scores than Whites, and Whites are admitted with lower scores than Asians, therefore, in this case, it’s logical to assume African-Americans have a privilege that Whites do not, and Whites have a privilege that Asians do not? All else being equal, poor African Americans are definitely underprivileged, but the beneficiaries for a while have been the African Americans that escaped the poverty trap.”
Which part of “controlling for all else” don’t you get? Show me the research that does that, rather than, say, simply averages across ethnic groups.
“so if I find that one ideology, say, is vastly underrepresented in academia, it’s safe for me to assume that the other ideology is greatly privileged? Especially since that ideology has a history of being the recipient of past privilege…”
I can see we’re going down the Oppression Olympics route here. I mean, it’s *so* much more important to argue that conservatives are underprivileged in academia than it is to suggest pervasive racial privilege in, say, policing in this country.
(And it is worth noting also that it’s not so easy as “being the recipient of past privilege” — let’s look at what that actually means here. After all, to say “Academia has traditionally been more liberal than the mainstream” does not mean that 1920s academics were as liberal as 1960s or 2000s — if, indeed, that has continued. If Academia has traditionally been more liberal, and it is currently more liberal, then that’s a factor to adjust for when looking at privilege. :))
(Oh, and as a side note: given that there’s roughly *zero* reason for racial bias to matter, but significant reason for political bias — after all, people are presumed to act upon their political beliefs, no? I’m not at all surprised that politics, as a voluntary thing, produces stronger reactions.)
Or is it that you wish to argue that there’s no “objective” way of determining privilege, therefore we have to throw up our hands and pretend it doesn’t exist? (In which case, BTW, to try and drag this back to SF, we can also throw up our hands at the whole point of literary awards, since there is no such thing as quality of a book.)
“Look a little closer into Liberation Theology beyond the top line definition. Parts of it definitely have Christian aspects but as I stated the tenants are shared between other “SJWs” across the spectrum of religions or non-religions. The fundamental boils down to western civilization is an oppressor civilization that needs to be punished. The only real theology aspect of the belief system is that God is on their side. The atheists believe that “right” is on their side and Muslims believe that “Allah” is on their side. ”
In other words, “Don’t look at what the term means, look at what I want it to mean!” How much do you pay “liberation theology” in wages, good sir?
And, once again, it’s not a view that I, or most anyone I know who often gets labeled an SJW, holds. “Punishment” is not the same thing as “correction” or “adaptation”. Things should change — that’s not the same as saying “people should be punished for it”. See the difference?
“because I believe that providing for people through means outside of the government is a better system.”
Well, considering it hasn’t worked yet, after how many thousand years of trying, I’d say that it’s a far more established “fact” that it won’t work than, say, Civilis’ “fact” that governmental work to eliminate poverty never works.
The funniest thing about this guy is I give him facts, quotes and some pretty hard definitions and he laughs cuz they’re too nebulous. In turn he comes at us with this privilege bullshit he can’t explain or describe or use to measure or predict anything. At some point you just have to declare: idiot.
Go back to Glyer’s pedant box where they’ll argue everything but the case in hand. If I only had his reporting to go by I’d think radical feminism didn’t even exist in SFF and the Sad Puppies grew out of thin air rather than 3 years of daily endless racial and sexual incitement created by klonopin-induced hazes and middle class naivete.
Steven Schwartz @ 4:47 pm- You should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana
Unless it is treason or espionage, the only crime which can result in the death penalty nowadays is murder. Not even child rape will result in the death penalty (which is flat wrong, IMO).
“It is only within that movement where I hear that speech must be curtailed because it offends, that people must be excluded from activities on basis of their skin color or gender, ”
Then you are very selective of hearing. I have heard quite often in my life that certain ideas are not permitted to be discussed — heck, merely discussing “privilege” around people causes much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and the dismissal of people as unreachable and beyond hope.
We’ve been fortunate in that most people are willing admit the *possibility* of letting PoC or women at the table — instead, they are merely dismissed as subhuman, or weak, or unacceptable — or their achievements are dismissed as unfair because of “affirmative action”.
(Oh, and you should listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth about, say, women in combat roles, for example — it’s definitely there, if you just bend your ear a bit.)
“. What I primarily see from opponents of Sad Puppies, and even of Rabid Puppies, is an overarching fear of a Right-Wing Racism Anti-LGBT Boogeyman — to such extent, that people in decades-long mixed-race marriages have been accused of “shielding racism” behind those relationships.”
Now, you see, here’s a funny thing: as a victim of multiple orientation-based violent attacks, I get a little sensitive when people start talking about how the natural reaction to seeing a male homosexual is to take a tire iron to them, for example.
Similarly, knowing somene who was pulled out of his cars, pushed to the ground and held at gunpoint while driving a fancy car in a majority-white neighborhood — and got stopped for a busted taillight — who *happened* to be black — makes me a bit sensitive about seeing reports of Yet Another Unarmed Black Man Shot By Frightened Cop, especially while across the country white people with a lot more firepower and intent get brought down gently. Especially when I read people talking about how those savages should expect it.
Things like that, built up over a life time (Oh, and let’s add in watching my female co-workers get dismissed, denigrated, and mistreated, to boot), do lead one to believe one has a *reason* to be afraid, and to get a bit jumpy when people start up with the same old rhetoric again.
You think it’s a boogeyman; a lot of people I know have had run-ins with a very physical, very real version of said boogeyman. So, yes, there’s fear. And there’s a reason for it.
You don’t want to deal with the reactions to that fear? Help fix the system so people don’t have to be afraid — telling them “Stop being afraid! I’m OK!” isn’t going to do anything, nor is telling them “You’re being unfair to me by being afraid of me! I’m insulted that you don’t think I’m better than the other people who look/sound/etc. like me who have done you harm!”
(And as a note: I am not saying *you* are doing either of the above; but I’ve heard them (and, indeed, said them, when I was younger and less clued-in as to my own privilege) a lot.)
“Well, considering it hasn’t worked yet”
What the hell are you smoking? It’s worked amazingly well. The mere fact that you, and the rest of us, aren’t spending our lives as illiterate stoop-labor agricultural peasants is directly attributable to capitalism.
Your left wing fantasy economy, on the other hand, has produced slavery, starvation, and mass murder every time it’s been put into full effect.
The various flavors of socialism (national and international) murdered something on the order of 100 million people in the last century. We’re not going to let you murder another hundred million people. Sorry.
@ Schwartz,
In other words, “Don’t look at what the term means, look at what I want it to mean!” How much do you pay “liberation theology” in wages, good sir?
I am done playing the “go get me a rock” game with you after this. You are clearly too lazy to actually look into the movement beyond a top line definition. To help with that Rev Jeremiah Wrights church taught “Black liberation theology”. “Palestinian” and “Female” liberation theology are also ideologies. They have very little to do with actual religion other than as a justification.
And, once again, it’s not a view that I, or most anyone I know who often gets labeled an SJW, holds. “Punishment” is not the same thing as “correction” or “adaptation”. Things should change — that’s not the same as saying “people should be punished for it”. See the difference?
Ah yes, Kind of like it’s not a “prison” it’s a “correctional institution”. I see now, very good, carry on. The problem with your “correction” is it corrects large sections of the population with a broad brush rather than dealing with individuals. It presumes guilt due to class or gender or orientation. It’s diabolical to the level of saying “even if there are no signs you are engaged in it you really are” kind of like catching cooties.
Well, considering it hasn’t worked yet, after how many thousand years of trying, I’d say that it’s a far more established “fact” that it won’t work than, say, Civilis’ “fact” that governmental work to eliminate poverty never works.
Yes, communism/socialism/statism has never been tried the “right way” with “smart people” and every experiment into it has never resulted in vast suffering and death. You are asking for Utopia as your bar and I am sorry that the real world simply does not work that way. Others have tried this path and when they were unable to convince people to willingly change their human nature they decided it needed to be forced upon them. The fact of the matter is, in the real world there will always be suffering no matter what we do. When we try to force others to participate in fixing every last shred of suffering that is when monsters are created. My system says “please provide for the poor and suffering in anyway you can.” Your way says “Provide for the poor and suffering or you will be made to suffer as well.” It may not be your intention that it ends up at that point but never the less when the State is empowered through law to ensure equality of outcomes that is where it ends up.
@Steve Moss: To quote from the decision:
“We do not address, for example, crimes defining and punishing treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State.”
Florida, for example, has a capital offense for drug dealing in sufficient quantity.
However, I think we’re now way off the topic, so I’ll try to stop being pedantic.
@ James
“Schwartz does seem to be ped-apologizing and just trolling for the sake of being contrary. He offers no facts or quotes, contributes nothing, is ignorant of the subject at hand, uses bizarre airy comparisons and just seems to argue bullshit for reasons no one but he knows.”
Simply a bored troll, with time to burn. Since our host is comfy with that, all that you can do is ignore him. Expecting BT to actively moderate while deployed is a bit much, and he seems inclined to let anyone participate up to the level of Clamps tendentiousness. SS is getting about that level, IMO. He does have the benefit of varsity level trolling experience, given the Wiscon pedigree.
Since SS is the only person driving the thread, I will move on. Once he and his “Steve Schwartz pedophile apologia” routine exhausts everyone else’s patience, they will move on, and so will he.
Rule #1: Don’t feed the trolls.
“What the hell are you smoking? It’s worked amazingly well. The mere fact that you, and the rest of us, aren’t spending our lives as illiterate stoop-labor agricultural peasants is directly attributable to capitalism.”
Capitalism heavily reined in and controlled by a government. You seem to think that there are only two systems: capitalism and centralized socialism. Some of us believe in a few more. 🙂
For example, I believe in a much stronger social safety net than we have in the U.S. right now; I also believe in free enterprise, up to a reasonable point. I suspect that you and I both agree on both the idea that there should be a social safety net, and that there should be limits on free enterprise — we just would argue over where.
“The various flavors of socialism (national and international) murdered something on the order of 100 million people in the last century. We’re not going to let you murder another hundred million people. Sorry.”
I have no problem with you voting against socialists for office. Heck — there are many aspects of many socialist regimes to which I would take great exception.
To illustrate the “go get me a rock” game in case you are unfamiliar you are going to come back at me with something along the lines of
“Go get me a rock”
“well it says theology in the title so it must have everything to do with religion, your definition sucks and is ever changing” – AKA I really wanted a grey rock this one is more of a black rock.
“communism? who said anything about communism? I just believe in a society with a minimal guaranteed outcome!” – AKA This rock is gray but it’s kind of rough, I wanted a smooth gray rock.
@Josh: If what you want is to express the idea that the western world is oppressive, and must be defeated/punished/etc., perhaps you should try something like “radical anti-colonialism”. Or just “anti-Westernism”. Then you wouldn’t have to a) keep explaining that no, when you say “theology” it doesn’t mean theology, and b) you wouldn’t then have to come back and claim that theological movements have nothing to do with religion….except that, well, they do.
“Ah yes, Kind of like it’s not a “prison” it’s a “correctional institution”. I see now, very good, carry on.”
And now, indeed, I’m done. Because it’s very clear that any word I *do* use you will translate into whatever word you feel you want it to mean; I say “fix the problem” you read “punish the wrongdoers” or somesuch.
I’ve already said, for example, elsewhere in this thread, that having privilege isn’t a moral fault; yet somehow you translate that into punishing the “guilty”.
“My system says “please provide for the poor and suffering in anyway you can.” ”
And, as I’ve said, historical evidence shows that doesn’t work.
And I have *never* said, nor have I ever believed, that I want “equality of outcomes”. There is an enormous difference between “No one is starving” and “Everyone is exactly equal” — and if you cannot hear that, that is not a problem with my speech, but your hearing.
Listen to yourself, Schwartz. You take all that and consider it a license to defame 200 million plus whites cuz anti-oppression. Do you ever think your thoughts through? You’re another Orwellian anti-bigot bigot. You profile to help stop profiling. You defend outright racial segregation and discrimination because goodness comes next.
Let me get this train back on the track. The radical feminist movement in SFF is an anti-white, anti-heterosexual, anti-male hate group. Everything it says has only one purpose: to dehumanize and demonize straight white men. The fact there are useful idiots who drink stupid-kool-aid and call it all social justice doesn’t mean a thing. What else can you call someone who calls whites clueless, racially insults an entire continent and calls themselves an anti-racist but a paranoid idiot with delusions of grandeur? Worse, what do you call naive flak catchers dumb enough to lap that all up and say “Yes, this!” or “Bravo.”
What do you call people who look at a photo of people doing exactly nothing and declare a possible KKK and go on to make a speech where they declare they wish they were exaggerating a thing they admit in the next few words they’ve never actually seen? SJWs are as dumb as a box of rocks. They spend half their time writing shit SF and the other writing about how faceless millions want to drag them behind pick up trucks and beat them up in imaginary restaurants because straight white men hate their secret knowledge, truth-telling and nobility.
I have yet to see one SJW who either understands or believes in the concept of law. They brag about places they would never dare live and defend people who would either imprison them or kill them outright. Somehow that real proof of oppression flies off into the night and only 36% women getting reviewed in some journal becomes a sign of a 10,000 year old patriarchy bent on mischief, genocide and pretty much terrorizing everyone with law, order and human rights. What in the world would these people be like without meds?
“Capitalism heavily reined in and controlled by a government”
Don’t give yourself a hernia shifting those goalposts, Schwartz.
“Reined in and controlled by a government” or not (which it mostly wasn’t, prior to FDR), capitalism is DIRECTLY responsible for a massive and sustained increase in standards of living and quality of life.
So much for “never worked”.
“You seem to think that there are only two systems: capitalism and centralized socialism.”
You seem to be fond of making up positions for your opponents, then debating those instead.
I would lay long odds that I’m more familiar with the history and evolution of forms of government and economic systems than you are, but that’s not actually the issue under discussion, is it?
The specific point in question is that you claimed that a capitalist economy and classic liberal form of government “never worked” to alleviate poverty. That’s risible nonsense. That you could even assert such a claim shows that you are either ignorant or mendacious. Which is it? Or is it both?
I can hear the difference and I also know what a slippery slope it is.
1.) There is truly no way that “no one is starving” can be achieved. No matter what we do some how someone will fall between the cracks. It is impossible to mastermind a system that prevents that from ever happening and simultaneously not inflict damage on other people.
2.) Assuming we found a way to ensure no one is starving the goal line will be moved to “no one is without a vehicle, everyone deserves freedom of movement! There will never be an end to it.
These things sound great but they are simply not possible in the real world. People who think they are possible and are given the power to try to make them possible, always eventually resort to using force to try and make them possible. It is something that has been tried and tried again. I am not besmirching your intentions I am just pointing out the flaw in your method.
“Listen to yourself, Schwartz. You take all that and consider it a license to defame 200 million plus whites cuz anti-oppression.”
Saying “There’s a bias in the system that favors white people in this country” isn’t defaming white people — and the fact that you think it is is a large part of the problem. I don’t think less of people because they have privilege — unless they know they have it and abuse it.
“The radical feminist movement in SFF is an anti-white, anti-heterosexual, anti-male hate group.”
Given that nothing you’ve quoted comes anywhere close to the standard that, say, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson reaches on a regular basis, and yet a lot of people screamed and yelled when the SPLC defined them as hate group, you’ve got a long way to go to prove your point.
“I have yet to see one SJW who either understands or believes in the concept of law.”
Do, please, read China Mieville’s “Between Equal Rights” and get back to me on this one. Or is China excluded from your list?
As for the rest — I do hope you have your own straw factory, because otherwise I *hate* to think what your bills must be like.
“Do, please, read China Mieville’s “Between Equal Rights” ”
No thanks. I sat through enough Marxist seminars in grad school. I’ve done my time in that area, and have no interest in reading yet another explanation of how we’re really going to do Marxism right this time, and it definitely won’t go wrong and leave an inconvenient pile of a few million dead bodies to clean up.
That’s not going to happen, dude.
@Dr. Locktepus: ‘The specific point in question is that you claimed that a capitalist economy and classic liberal form of government “never worked” to alleviate poverty. That’s risible nonsense. That you could even assert such a claim shows that you are either ignorant or mendacious. Which is it? Or is it both?’
Actually, unless Josh is being particularly obtuse, he’s well to the libertarian side of “classic liberal form of government.”
And I submit to you, and will stand by the argument that, the threat of labor violence from below, and significant governmental control from above, shaped the capitalist economy to a workable, maintainable (at least for now) form here in the First World.
There is nothing fundamentally incompatible with capitalism and, for example, a guaranteed minimum income. Or even a wealth cap. With some *forms* of capitalism, yes- – but not the core structure.
Oh — and as to the goalpost-shifting: I am not responsible for *you* feeling a goalpost has been shifted when you misattribute a position to me, as, for example, Josh has repeatedly done.
@Josh: “2.) Assuming we found a way to ensure no one is starving the goal line will be moved to “no one is without a vehicle, everyone deserves freedom of movement! There will never be an end to it.”
So, improving the world one step at a time is a bad thing? 😉
By the arguments you’re using here, I could equally well say, “Well, you want to reduce the size of government — clearly, the next step is the complete elimination of government, since that’s the way the slope slides!” Now, I don’t think you *actually* believe that; but I am giving you more credit for being truthful than you are apparently willing to give me.
“It is something that has been tried and tried again. I am not besmirching your intentions I am just pointing out the flaw in your method.”
That’s because you’re pointing to the flaw in the method you’ve leapt to. I agree with you that nothing can be made perfect — but I think things can be made *vastly* better than they are, and that history has shown that asking people to make it better voluntarily hasn’t worked.
“Do, please, read China Mieville’s “Between Equal Rights” ”
No thanks. I sat through enough Marxist seminars in grad school. I’ve done my time in that area, and have no interest in reading yet another explanation of how we’re really going to do Marxism right this time, and it definitely won’t go wrong and leave an inconvenient pile of a few million dead bodies to clean up.
That’s not going to happen, dude.”
That wasn’t directed to you, but to James May, and his complaint that he’s never met an SJW that “understands or believes in the concept of law.” It’s a discussion of the foundation of international law.
Your jump to conclusions, however, was quite impressive; not Bob Beamon-level, but definitely noteworthy.
Is China a feminist who supports abolishing gender and Red Sonja paintings?
By the way, once you’ve abolished gender and ended sexism, then what? Any other requests? Why not abolish race with mandatory skin tonings? Voila! No racism!
” It’s a discussion of the foundation of international law.”
It’s a Marxist propaganda piece, no doubt as worthless as a Scientology tract that attributes every ill in the world to Xenu (or whatever it is) or a NeoNazi “expose” that attributes every problem to the Zionist Banking Conspiracy. None of them are worth my time to read.
Only in academia have people failed to notice that Marxism a) does not work, b) cannot work, and c) doesn’t even really exist any more as a going concern. China (the country, not the author) is Marxist in name only — note that things have gotten a lot better for the average Chinese worker since they embraced the joys of commerce. North Korea is basically a prehistoric God King regime with a thin layer of Marxist frosting on top. Cuba will remain “Marxist” for about three nanoseconds after the last Castro brother dies.
Marxism lost, and we’re not going to let it come back.
Seriously, I’d rather read a book on how international law was handed down by gray aliens from Zeta Reticuli. At least that book might have some original ideas.
By the way, let’s see what the non-fully heterosexual gals are up to in their noble crusade to truth-tell and abolish gender:
“Liz Bourke retweeted Irish Times Opinion @IrishTimesOpEd · May 12 Heterosexism is a prejudice and rationally indefensible”
Well, that would certainly explain not reviewing men; they’re monsters.
“Foz Meadows @fozmeadows · 2h 2 hours ago It’s the heat death of the universe; @Marvel has released a new white guy Spiderman movie. Dimming stars cry for Black Widow, then wink out.”
Oh, dear – white men again. Pesky fuckers.
“A. Dally MacFarlane @foxvertebrae · 9h 9 hours ago @benjanun_s relentless heterosexuality: the ruin of literature”
Oh, man – dammit. Heterosexuality again.
Gee, I wonder how they’ll vote at the Hugos? Best written story I’m sure and not anything to do with prejudice against whites, men and heterosexuals cuz why would drones act in concert?
“Or is it that you wish to argue that there’s no ‘objective’ way of determining privilege, therefore we have to throw up our hands and pretend it doesn’t exist? ”
This is the same argument behind any given religion. A belief system without objective support, and yet you want society to change on basis of its tenets. I see no reason I should give your position any more credence than that of, say, a Mormon polygamist.
I can see we’re going down the Oppression Olympics route here. I mean, it’s *so* much more important to argue that conservatives are underprivileged in academia than it is to suggest pervasive racial privilege in, say, policing in this country.
Oh, but it’s s so much more important to worry fixing the pervasive Progressive bias in the American educational system largely responsible for the poverty left in America, especially in the urban areas where it disproportionately affects minorities, than it is to worry about minor statistical disparities in criminal outcomes which are largely an artifact of that Progressive bias. Likewise, that remaining racial bias is largely an artifact generated by the Progressive destruction of the urban social system. These are the unintended consequences (again! who could have guessed?) of throwing most of the good cultural values necessary for individuals to prosper (foremost amongst them being individual responsibility).
“Or is it that you wish to argue that there’s no ‘objective’ way of determining privilege, therefore we have to throw up our hands and pretend it doesn’t exist? ”
It’s better than pretending it exists without any way to verify it, then remaking society based on the delusions that you’re fixing something you can’t identify with the conceit that you have the skills and knowledge to fix everyone’s problems better than they do and they’ll thank you for it when they’re done (those that are still alive, that is).
Here’s a perfect example of a man so out of touch it defies belief. And yet he is eager to argue stuff he knows zilch about. I give you Eric Flint: knower of all things just because.
http://www.ericflint.net/index.php/2015/05/14/and-again-on-the-hugo-awards/comment-page-1/#comment-2586172
If I tried to unpack all the stuff in this zany rant I’d be here til winter.
“Then you are very selective of hearing.”
You appear to have no knowledge whatsoever of what I have heard, to allege that I have in any way selected any of it. You seem to be very selective of belief.
Your blog Brad – but maybe you should put a posting limit. You got a guy here who’s posted 58 comments in 24 hours. I think he needs to get his own blog – or pay you money.
rcocean: I was told, one or two hundred posts up, that one of the evils of “SJW” blogs was that their comments section censored people with opposing views.
Steve: “I have changed my fundamental political principles based on an argument I saw on the Internet”, said no one, ever. But I salute your effort and your good intentions.
Even a daily posting limit would be better than actual censorship — as in, having your comments deleted and/or your ability to post anything at all banned. Which is what usually goes on in various SJW-moderated forums. Been there, been victim of it, yes it happens.
That said, preeeeetty sure the “get his own blog – or pay you money” tips off that the post is meant with a touch of sarcasm.
Hahaha. I saw your comment Calbeck.
I’d have to say that – considering Flint’s professional status – that is the single most startling post I’ve ever read in the SFF community.
@schwartz
So, improving the world one step at a time is a bad thing? 😉
By the arguments you’re using here, I could equally well say, “Well, you want to reduce the size of government — clearly, the next step is the complete elimination of government, since that’s the way the slope slides!” Now, I don’t think you *actually* believe that; but I am giving you more credit for being truthful than you are apparently willing to give me.
ahh but mu side has consistently draw the line with statements like “necessary evil”. I have yet to see your side draw similar lines. Instead you draw lines like “eliminate discrimination” where the definition of discrimination continually changes.
@James May: “Is China a feminist who supports abolishing gender and Red Sonja paintings?”
And we’re back to chasing unicorns.
“By the way, once you’ve abolished gender and ended sexism, then what? Any other requests? Why not abolish race with mandatory skin tonings? Voila! No racism!”
I find it interesting that people who want to “explore and *expand*” gender roles are somehow now being accused of abolishing gender. Or shall we remove the Tiptree community as well from your SJW list, thereby rendering ever more unicorn-like.
““Liz Bourke retweeted Irish Times Opinion @IrishTimesOpEd · May 12 Heterosexism is a prejudice and rationally indefensible”
Well, that would certainly explain not reviewing men; they’re monsters.”
How you get from “prejudice against non-heterosexuals” to “men are monsters” is a truly impressive leap. Again, your presumptions are showing.
And you know what, Mr. May? I suspect that if someone posted “Straight men are just drones.” you’d add that to your list of “hateful things” — but you have no problem calling your opponents drones, and ascribing to them lists of beliefs they don’t actually have.
Take the mote out of your own eye.
So, improving the world one step at a time is a bad thing? 😉
So, depending on you definition of “improving” this perspective radically changes.
If I were the accused white supremacist your side accuses me of beings, then I could easily make the same argument. I would start off by vilifying the thug class of the PoC community. Then I would claim it is “progress” to assume any POC is a thug. Oh, you object to that? Why are you standing in the way of improving the world one step at a time?
@Dr Locketepus: “It’s a Marxist propaganda piece, no doubt as worthless as a Scientology tract that attributes every ill in the world to Xenu (or whatever it is) or a NeoNazi “expose” that attributes every problem to the Zionist Banking Conspiracy. None of them are worth my time to read.”
So I presume, to loop this back to the original thread, that you consider it utterly appropriate to simply vote “No Award” for all the “related works”, since I can tell by who wrote them (by your logic) that they’re worthless, and therefore undeserving of an award?
In any event, there’s no point in continuing further discussion with someone whose mind is so closed. Have a good life.
“{than it is to worry about minor statistical disparities in criminal outcomes which are largely an artifact of that Progressive bias.”
I’ll presume that’s sarcasm for attempted effect, rather than your actual viewpoint.
Regardless, it’s clear we’re done here. Have a nice life.
“If I were the accused white supremacist your side accuses me of beings, then I could easily make the same argument. I would start off by vilifying the thug class of the PoC community. Then I would claim it is “progress” to assume any POC is a thug. Oh, you object to that? Why are you standing in the way of improving the world one step at a time?”
I don’t recall ever calling you a white supremacist. Indeed, I’ve seen no evidence of it. Someone with unexamined white privilege, yes, but that’s a far cry from a white supremacist.
“I would start off by vilifying the thug class of the PoC community. Then I would claim it is “progress” to assume any POC is a thug. Oh, you object to that? Why are you standing in the way of improving the world one step at a time?”
Your projection is showing. As I said above — having privilege doesn’t make you evil. Having it, knowing about it, and continuing to abuse it makes you part of the problem, but that’s a choice you make.
I’ve tried, here, to explain. To perhaps open a few eyes. To extend a few “Surely we agree on X, right?” You can choose to take it, or not. You can also choose to believe that you know what I’m *really* saying, what I *really* mean, because you’ve decided People Like Me are evil, or deceitful.
Your call. I can’t change your mind.
@Seth Gordon:”Steve: “I have changed my fundamental political principles based on an argument I saw on the Internet”, said no one, ever. But I salute your effort and your good intentions.”
Thank you. I try. Eventually, I look at something someone’s said, and go, “OK. There is no further point to be made here, either to an onlooker or to the debater, and so I’ll go my way.”
I think I’ve hit that point, when I see people describe multiple dead people as “minor statistical disparities in criminal outcomes”, whether they’re being arch or being serious.
Good luck here. I won’t be back for a while.
Ding dong, the Wiscon witch is dead? Only 61 posts? Pshaw, I was thinking something like the century mark 🙂
So, improving the world one step at a time is a bad thing?
It’s cute, isn’t it? How people like that always pretty up their desire to decide How Things Should Be as “improving the world” and yet somehow that never happens.
Which usually becomes an excuse for them to demand more opportunities to “improve” things since they will get it right this time!
Then the bodies start piling up again and it becomes less cute.
@Schwartz “And we’re back to chasing unicorns. ”
Except I’ve seen the unicorns in question. Your decision to disbelieve in their existence doesn’t make ’em go away.
Schwartz, it’s more obvious than ever you don’t know what’s happening. Abolishing gender is perhaps the key core concept of radical feminism. They say it straight out in writing after writing. This is what I mean by “mainstreaming” a thing by you taking up a cause or ideology you don’t truly understand. Their idea – crazy as it is – is that if there are no obvious cultural markers separating men and women, men won’t oppress women. Read the words of a modern feminist about how the patriarchy oppresses women:
“Gender creates the differences between the sexes. It celebrates inequality and it glamorizes the subordinate status of females – therefore gender is the embodiment of sexism. Without gender, we’d be androgynous in terms of fashion, and it would be much more difficult to notice one’s sex at first glance. How do groups of people oppress other groups if they aren’t able to tell themselves apart from the other? Gender’s intended purpose is to clearly mark the subordinate class from the privileged class.”
I am making no presumptions, just reading words. Ann Leckie probably did the same thing in Ancillary Justice as you. She borrowed the surface thing of this fantastically stupid movement and called it robot-zombie C-No-Gender but otherwise ignored it in the actual plot. The presumption comes from middle class naive radical chic who borrow this stuff – don’t read the source material – and simply presume social justice comes out the other side. Like you, they take up the cause of abolishing gender without even knowing what the hell’s going on or where that all came from. This silly movement looks quite a bit different when you read its academic text books. They’re frickin’ lunatics.
And white privilege is a form of white supremacy. if at least a simple majority of whites don’t value their own skin above others, then white privilege doesn’t even exist does it? It’s a smear calculated to be a smear. White privilege would exist in a Jim Crow county – that can be measured and predicted by law. You cannot stipulate that in 2015. Where is the measuring stick? White privilege is just another wacky smackdown created by black radical feminists to attack white radical feminism. Just look at the privilege wars between feminists right now over the Laura Mixon Hugo nomination. They’re attacking each other every day and taking up sides: white women vs. “women of color.”
So Schwartz disappears. That’s why they delete us. We tear their goofy ideologies apart and expose them as empty wacky cults. Crazy feminists can’t fisk their own quotes.
“Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!”
I think it’s pretty fair to say the evil at the bottom of all this is this power/privilege punching up stuff. It is a great weapon for bigots to use to excuse their bigotry and when do-gooders get suckered in they make intellectually and morally insane arguments.
How many times do we have to hear about one rabid racist, homophobic, misogynist while 50 rabid racist, heterophobic, misandrists skate clean away? You cannot maintain one exists without the other, especially when you have thousands of quotes staring you in the face… quotes which go ignored by the power/privilege bunch. This is a shared human failing, not something straight white men have cornered the market in. I’m just still amazed people get conned by that obviously bigoted take.
You will never get a fair shake out of such people – never.
The same people telling you to go out and provoke and use Christ in urine are also telling you to not go out and provoke and not use Christ in urine. One comes to that magic formula by substituting Mohammed for Christ the second time round.
The same people telling you to not judge a race by the actions of a few are also telling you to judge a race by the actions of a few. You get to that magic formula by blaming all whites for white-washed SF covers but not all blacks for crime.
You get the picture – just multiply it by how many thousands of times you wish. It’s a perceptual trap, and one which one would think wouldn’t fool a child. There’s a lot of children in SFF and they are dazzled by skin and sex until reason is driven right out of their heads. Exactly when did Americans become this stupid? We can’t agree on a single definition of hate speech? In the 21st century? If you can’t do that, what can you do?
Why would an adult have to be told you don’t look at the race and sex of a driver before handing out a speeding ticket?
I think I’ve hit that point, when I see people describe multiple dead people as “minor statistical disparities in criminal outcomes”, whether they’re being arch or being serious.
The problem is that every dead person is important to someone, and you’re not reducing the number of dead people, you’re just shifting them around. Those cops that have been assassinated because African-American community leaders can get political power by stirring hatred between their communities and the police over cases that aren’t as neatly cut and dried as initially believed? They’re people too. The victims of drug gang warfare because the police can’t work in their communities? They’re people too. Predictable consequences rears it’s ugly head again. I’m certainly willing to believe we have an issue with police too willing to use force, that sentences for some crimes are too high, that we need to look at decriminalizing drugs, but I realize that all those come with tradeoffs, and all those tradeoffs involve different people with their lives ruined or dead, just like deinstitutionalizing people with mental illness has had both positive and negative effects on many lives.
I’ve seen Progressives get all high-and-mighty about how evil Christopher Columbus was for accidentally bringing disease to the New World and he’s to blame for the result. I haven’t seen a single one lament the tens of millions of people, mostly poor Africans, dead because Progressives campaigned to get rid of the only economically viable method for controlling malaria, but those millions are just statistics. I’ve seen them complain about malnutrition in the third world on one hand and sentences later complain about the development of GMO foods. I’ve seen them lament about the lack of clean energy and sentences later go on a rant about the evils of nuclear power. All of those are things that greatly effect the lives of millions if not billions of people, but those people are just statistics. Freddie Gray, on the other hand, is obviously important.
Darren Wilson is just a name to you. What happens to him doesn’t directly effect you one way or the other. Does his life matter to you, or is he just a statistic?
I’ll believe that Feminists REALLY want to abolish gender when they start campaigning against sex-segregated bathrooms.
You guys get it that all our SS Pedo-apologist guest was doing was collecting material for the next WisCon panel and breathless tales of derring-do as he bearded the evil cismale patriarchy in its own den, right?
@ Schwartz
I don’t recall ever calling you a white supremacist. Indeed, I’ve seen no evidence of it. Someone with unexamined white privilege, yes, but that’s a far cry from a white supremacist.
I never said you personally called me a white supremacist. I said “your side”. There is a difference I deal with individuals not large groups. when I say your side I do not necessarily mean you.
Your projection is showing. As I said above — having privilege doesn’t make you evil. Having it, knowing about it, and continuing to abuse it makes you part of the problem, but that’s a choice you make.
Actually, no. Unlike many on your side I can put myself in other people’s shoes and understand their motivations.
I’ve tried, here, to explain. To perhaps open a few eyes. To extend a few “Surely we agree on X, right?” You can choose to take it, or not. You can also choose to believe that you know what I’m *really* saying, what I *really* mean, because you’ve decided People Like Me are evil, or deceitful.
Your call. I can’t change your mind.
Two comments here. I have already demonstrated that you are deceitful when you claimed you only wanted to “make sure no one starved” and I said that would not be enough for you once you accomplished that goal. You responded with the “one step at a time” response. This proves you were not above board when you said “I only want” what you meant was “step one is”.
I don’t think you are evil I think you are genuinely naïve. I also think you are not capable of anticipating the consequences of your “corrections”. You believe you can heard cats. Most people who have been given power with your set of ideas start killing cats when they realize they can’t get them all to go in the same direction. You are still under the illusion that laws can be “little” and “harmless” and might cause a little “discomfort” for some people who probably need a little “discomfort” anyway because they have been so “privileged”. The thing to keep in mind with laws is that any law that has an enforcement component means that someone can be killed for not following it. You believe that is an “extreme” position because you don’t walk through the steps. If someone doesn’t follow your law, eventually men with guns show up at their house. If they refuse to be taken away from their house they will be killed. Admittedly, that is a small portion of the population but I would say it’s no smaller than the number of people starving in this country. The difference is, the more laws you make to try and equalize society , the larger both the starving and law breaking groups become.
Steve Schvantz: “I am curious as to the magical change that happens on someone’s 18th birthday.”
You made a typo, kid.
“I am curious as to the magical change that happens when a fetus is 4″ outside of it’s mother vagina, rather than 4″ inside of it.”
There, fixed it for you.
Now that Steven Schwartz has left, maybe we can shift the discussion to something less contentious, like the Hugo Awards.
“So I presume, to loop this back to the original thread, that you consider it utterly appropriate to simply vote “No Award” for all the “related works”, since I can tell by who wrote them (by your logic) that they’re worthless, and therefore undeserving of an award?”
You “presume” a lot of things that aren’t actually in evidence.
I didn’t say anything about “who wrote them” (which is utterly orthogonal to the subject of the book) nor did I say anything about voting “No Award” (I personally don’t judge science fiction by the same criteria that I use for allegedly serious scholarly works, but it’s interesting that you apparently do — it’s all about the politics with you people, innit?).
I said I wasn’t going to waste any more of my life reading Marxist drivel, any more than I’d spend time reading up on phlogiston if I wanted to learn something about chemistry. A hundred million dead bodies is enough.
Nice flounce, though.
“I think I’ve hit that point, when I see people describe multiple dead people as “minor statistical disparities in criminal outcomes”, whether they’re being arch or being serious.”
And yet you somehow manage to ignore that stinking pile of a hundred million dead bodies.
@ Christopher M. Chupik
“Now that Steven Schwartz has left, maybe we can shift the discussion to something less contentious, like the Hugo Awards.”
All my kek kek keks this morning. Although, if you want to turn your world upside down, you might read the owner of Making Light’s warm regards for Marko Kloos, endorsed by Paul Weimer.
I will be voting for Skin Game in the best novel, but I am reasonably confident that the SJW lobbying will coalesce on 3BP.
“Now that Steven Schwartz has left,”
We can only hope that after 65 posts, his fingers got tired. Or maybe his Mom wanted him the clean up the basement.
“I will be voting for Skin Game in the best novel, but I am reasonably confident that the SJW lobbying will coalesce on 3BP.”
Ah, so they’ll pick the novel Vox liked? 😉
God is an iron, true. However, it does have the benefit of denying the SP / RP recommended works a win in the long form category.
Steven Schwartz —
All this talk of white male priviledge is quite similar to the tone toward Jews in Germany during the 1930s and before. They were hated because of their success. Jewish people earned more money on average, had more wealth on average, had far higher representation in the professions than proportionality would suggest. This reached a crescendo during the currency collapse of Weimar Germany followed by the Great Depression as the relative success of Jews was thrown into stark relief.
Germans overwhelmingly saw (and were propagandized to see) Jews as the beneficiaries of unseen forces that favored them. They were seen as shifty, cheating and much worse.
The reality is that human ability in its myriad facets is not evenly distributed. Not among ethnic groups, not among genders. This is not a racialist statement, and it is not a sexist statement. It is an objective fact supported by an ocean of empirical data. It is a large part of the reason for Jewish outperformance in Germany, and it is a large part of why some goups exhibit outperformance today.
The best attitude in all fields of endeavor should be to cheer excellence. Germans of the era I speak of should have been grateful to anyone who brought excellence, not envious or resentful. My grandfather, born in 1908 in New York, wished to be a scientist in America, and so natually he studied German. Vienna (in Austria, but the point holds) was the intellectual center of the world in 1900. Economics, invention, music, philosophy. Anyone engaging in the modern social discourse who turns and looks toward the philosophical discourse which occurred in the Germanic world then is variously astonished and humbled, realizing his primitive and childlike positions have been previously developed to levels unimaginable.
Rather than cheering of excellence, what developed in Germany was a wierd attitude that intellectual things were valued according to who produced it rather than whether they were true or good. You had the wierd phenomenon of “Deutsche Physik” for instance, which labeled the important discoveries of modern physics as ‘Jewish Physics’ and rejected them on that basis (never mind that they are empirically true). This was even worse than nothing scientifically speaking: Because Jewish scientists had discovered things that were true, the Germans literally took positions that were false just to be contrary. (On the bright side, the Germans put the Bomb out of their own reach.)
The German-speaking world lost intellectual and scientific leadership after World War II. There is little chance of repeating the most famous catastophe of that era. But the intellectual catastrophe is certainly being repeated.
Choosing intellectual output based on who produced it is no way to achieve of excellence. But it is worst than that. We are in an era when many of the left seek wholesale rejection our intellectual heritage, that is, what we have found to be true, based on who produced it. Plain old truth is considered white male truth and the left, like the Germans behind Deutsche Physik, actually embaces things that are not true in contraposition to what came before.
That this project cannot succeed is obvious. That the left is degrading itself by carving out an embarrassing place in history is becoming more so.
SJWs are sociopathic, bitter, broken people who are arsonists in any sane and peaceful community. The sole value they have is as an example of how hate speech is mainstreamed into the public arena.
‘ “I will be voting for Skin Game in the best novel, but I am reasonably confident that the SJW lobbying will coalesce on 3BP.”
Ah, so they’ll pick the novel Vox liked?’
Before they realized that Vox liked it, all they could talk about was how mean and horrible the Puppy campaigns were for keeping it off the ballot. Now they won’t even mention it – every comment on F770 from the regular suspects is glowing praise for ‘The Goblin Emperor’ and ‘Ancillary Sword’.
A sword? Can Leckie’s genderblind zombie see swords, or are phallic symbols replaced with mathematical glyphs indicating a red hot danger area of private spots yet to be determined?
I love feminist SF. It’s ookie and it’s creepy.
I know I was one of the more prolific responders to Mr. Schwartz, and I hope no one here was put out by the constant replies. A lot of the stagnation in Science Fiction is being driven by the idea of Social Justice, so this is relevant to the Hugos.
Mr. Hess touches on an important point.
I believe there are several built in fallacies at the heart of Social Justice as a concept (defined ad justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society)
One is the idea, touched on by Mr. Hess, that to a believer in Social Justice differences in outcomes between two people are necessarily the result of some outside factors. This comes from the idea that two people should be automatically economically equal in value, which is a product of Marx’s labor theory of value. The truth is, human ability in its myriad facets is not evenly distributed, as Mr. Hess said.
The second is Mr. May’s perennial enemy, group identity politics in it’s form of Intersectional Gender Feminism, which holds that people are nothing more than the sum of their groups. It combines with the first idea that differences in outcomes between two groups are necessarily the result of some outside factors.
The third is that a human can be trusted enough to judge what is truly a just outcome. Individuals are individual; we each have different levels of wants and desires, and have different tolerances for risk and reward. Historically, we have invented elaborate procedures to approach justice as close as possible, and even then we only use it to address things that absolutely have to be addressed.
The fourth is the idea that one can rectify an injustice with another injustice. Building on the third point, if you can’t be trusted to judge what a just or unjust outcome is, you certainly can’t be trusted to judge what an adequate restitutional injustice is. Again, crime needs to be addressed some way, and we have elaborate procedures in place, and even so the goal must be prevention of further crime rather than achieving true justice. When combined with the second point one, any pretext of fairness at an individual level is gone, and one that believes in social justice can remedy an injustice by a member of group B against one member of group A by committing an injustice against a different member of group B in favor of a different member of group A because it all balances out on a group level.
End result of this is, applied to the Tony Robinson case: Tony Robinson’s drug addiction and violent behavior weren’t his own fault, and his being shot when attacking a cop in a drug-fueled frenzy is someone’s fault other than his own. He’s African-American, and African-Americans in general are less privileged than whites, so his shooting was a fault of white privilege by the closest white involved, the cop, Matt Kenney. To get justice for this, African-Americans should plot to go out and kill Matt Kenney, or any police officer.
@ civilis
I thought the back and forth was fine. I did feel a bit the same way about my back and forth with him. I think both of us got him to slip and reveal some things about himself and his views that he was trying to avoid revealing, although I think you did better than I in that regard.
The fourth is the idea that one can rectify an injustice with another injustice.
Another Injustice? Didn’t Schwartz teach you it’s called a “correction” when he does it. He has to “correct” your behavior because, like a loving parent, he knows you just don’t know what is good for you.
End result of this is, applied to the Tony Robinson case: Tony Robinson’s drug addiction and violent behavior weren’t his own fault, and his being shot when attacking a cop in a drug-fueled frenzy is someone’s fault other than his own. He’s African-American, and African-Americans in general are less privileged than whites, so his shooting was a fault of white privilege by the closest white involved, the cop, Matt Kenney. To get justice for this, African-Americans should plot to go out and kill Matt Kenney, or any police officer.
The only thing I will add to this is to say, even if Matt Kenney were also African-American it would still be the police department’s fault because it allowed too many white men to influence it’s training practices. The grotesque argument would be made that Matt Kenney was trying to please white men by shooting Mr. Robinson. Said simply, Matt Kenney would be called an “Uncle Tom”.
The only thing I will add to this is to say, even if Matt Kenney were also African-American it would still be the police department’s fault because it allowed too many white men to influence it’s training practices. The grotesque argument would be made that Matt Kenney was trying to please white men by shooting Mr. Robinson. Said simply, Matt Kenney would be called an “Uncle Tom”.
Which is exactly why ‘white racism’ rather than police over-use of force gets the blame despite the prominent involvement of African-American officers in both the Garner death in New York and the Gray death in Baltimore and despite the sizable number of cases where the dead individual was white.
The validity of any model is in whether it can be shown to reflect the real world: http://tinyurl.com/pu8aolo
Brad, I hope “No Award” is also welcome in your big tent, at your party. It’s going to need a lot of room.
BTW, great posts @AlternateSnowcrash. Great chart. As you say, where did the SP3 nominations come from? Why did Brad nominate SO MUCH writing that was NEVER suggested by any commenters on his blog (about 70% was never mentioned!), and why was so much writing that WAS specifically suggested to him — commentators BEGGED Brad to nominate some works — nonetheless left OFF the SP3 ballot? Why did King Brad secretly declare so many suggestions as having no value? (The Goblin Emperor, for example): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KsUUULAR4McYiosUfFT1lr9IRnJgYabSuX6qgSEs19s/edit?usp=sharing
Brad, Larry and Vox have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They never expected anyone to do any real research. God knows those three never did or do.
The only people in this “big tent” are Brad, Larry and Vox. They, their monstrous egos, and the size of the lies they have told are more than enough to totally-fill any tent on earth.
Boy, it’s pretty amazing what you get when you fart into a microphone with ‘Speech to Text’ on, isn’t it?
Pissing in everyone else’s cornflakes just because you don’t like the breakfast menu is not being a “maverick.” It’s being an infantile bully. Which is precisely what Mr. Torgersen is.
@ GC
Pissing in everyone else’s cornflakes just because you don’t like the breakfast menu is not being a “maverick.” It’s being an infantile bully. Which is precisely what Mr. Torgersen is.
Interesting analogy that doesn’t apply in the slightest. In you analogy Brad changed the breakfast menu to his liking. Pissing in it would be if he organized a “No Award” campaign thus ruining the breakfast for everyone. I seem to recall that some people maybe suggested such a thing. Are they infantile bullies?
“infantile bully”
Lol. Which is it? Infants and bullies occupy opposite poles. When people following the rules produced a result that was not liked, the SJWs used extraordinary power to bully. By getting a slew of libels published in major media worldwide within days of the vote.
It would have been possible to respond genteely and go with the flow.
Instead, the SJWs responded to by unleashing the dogs and firehoses, showing themselves in a fairly shocking light to observers.
And it is a shocking light.
3 years of the daily harassment of men, whites and heterosexuals as a group by so-called “anti-racists” referring to whites as having “cluelessness,” “cracka ass cracka”(s), supremacists, “sour dough-faced,” “diabolical,” “white saviors,” “murdering kin,” needing trigger warnings, review censoring whites, review censoring men, boycotting all white convention panels, segregated rooms and dinners, America as an “apartheid” and “white supremacy,” complaining about an all-white Table of Contents, alleging decades-long racial conspiracies to keep women, non-whites and gays out of epic fantasy and SFF, facts about PoC out of medieval European history, facts about women out of military history, swarming a bookstore on Twitter because of an all-male book display, a Nebula nominee and the editor of the Mag of SF&F speculating there aren’t more women in epic fantasy cuz men “hate” women, all men benefitting from “sexism,” whites being “racists,” “anti-diversity,” “xenophobes,” “Islamophobes,” 2 Nebula nominees claiming whites make white epic fantasy and that’s why whites read them, promoting fake rape stats and “rape culture, accusations of “white privilege” and much more. All of it documented and in quotes.
That’s not including hundreds of reading recommendations based on nothing more than skin and sex, also documented.
That is a disgrace.
That is no conspiracy but open and public ideologically feminist, racist and bigoted collusion to discriminate. Of course Eric Flint and GRRM don’t believe that stuff. It’s clear from their comments they don’t even know that stuff exists.
In short, SJWs with actual names themselves do all the things they falsely claim millions of straight white men do.
Orgell, +10.
Hugo nominated Skiffy and Fanty podcaster Cecily Kane: “The straight white dude perspective is basically the Dunning-Kruger effect apex of all civilization.”
“Cecily Kane @Cecily_Kane 9h9 hours ago @benjanun_s Will see if I can think of more after proper caffeination; RN I can only think of one lesbian fairytale.”
Hob-knobbing with Requires Hates, the most hysterically anti-white racist, man-hating heterophobe in the history of SFF. What an amazing coincidence.
Let’s see Skiffy & Fanty podcaster Paul Weimer disavow that… and fellow Skiffy Shaun Duke… and himself while he’s at it. They both Tweet with Requires Hate anyway so it might be a bit of a stretch to expect that while they write pedantic posts theorizing how Brad still technically qualifies as a racist while they approve in principle with someone they disavow in principle. A neat trick from a confused bunch.
Here’s more of what our darling podcast member of Skiffy and Fanty thinks is worthy of our attention, written by Junot Diaz, a black man intersectionalists in SFF look up to and quote slavishly, and it’s certainly obvious why, and it ain’t brains since Diaz is never short of shit to talk about white people.
“Cecily Kane retweeted Jessica Price @Delafina777 · May 13 This is pretty much a mic drop on the whole GG/Puppies ‘we want SFF WITHOUT all these diversity issues!’ whining.”
“Look, without our stories, without the true nature and reality of who we are as People of Color, nothing about fanboy or fangirl culture would make sense. What I mean by that is: if it wasn’t for race, X-men doesn’t sense. If it wasn’t for the history of breeding human beings in the New World through chattel slavery, Dune doesn’t make sense. If it wasn’t for the history of colonialism and imperialism, Star Wars doesn’t make sense. If it wasn’t for the extermination of so many Indigenous First Nations, most of what we call science fiction’s contact stories doesn’t make sense.
“Without us as the secret sauce, none of this works, and it is about time that we understood that we are the Force that holds the Star Wars universe together. We’re the Prime Directive that makes Star Trek possible, yeah. In the Green Latern Corps, we are the oath. We are allof these things – erased, and yet without us – we are essential.”
That is a pitch perfect example of the racism, resentment, puffery, historical ignorance, racial supremacy, and willful idiocy of intersectionalism. It’s hard to know where to even begin taking down Diaz’s amazingly childish and even bratty perspective except to say one needs an awful big sledgehammer to pound that delusion into place.
And again, who and what are these people voting for come Hugo time? What conspiracy? This KKK ain’t no secret.
Paul Weimer comes off as two-faced. He acts like he’s everybody’s friend when he’s on our blogs, but on Twitter he shows his real colors.
And now that I’ve invoked his name, I’m sure he’ll come and tell me how wrong I am.
If it wasn’t for the history of colonialism and imperialism, Star Wars doesn’t make sense.
The total cultural imperialism and historical ignorance in that sentence is breathtaking all by itself. Star Wars is widely acknowledged to be based off an Akira Kurosawa film (The Hidden Fortress). Claiming that it’s obviously based off your own cultural history requires tremendous chutzpah. While one can be critical of Lucas’s borrowing from Kurosawa, Kurosawa is famous for borrowing from Shakespeare, so obviously he considers borrowing and adapting others works acceptable. One reason these stories have lasted and done so well internationally is that they’re based off of themes and narratives recognizable in many cultures.
Like Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Diaz seems to not include the people of Asia in his ideological view, perhaps because they break the carefully constructed narratives. It’s ironic that the very Progressives that bash European and European-derived cultures seem to be the ones stuck in a Eurocentric worldview.
It is possible that Mr. Diaz has decided to re-welcome Asians into the umbrella people of color. It’s illustrative that whether Asians are regarded as People of Color in Social Justice discussions seems to depend entirely on which way benefits the arguer. The problem with this line of thinking is that it reveals that all the sins heaped entirely on Western culture are present just as much, if not more, in non-Western cultures. The Han were colonizing and imperializing before Rome, and are still colonizing and imperializing today in an era when the West has recognized the folly of colonial economics.
And of course, Kurosawa borrowed heavily from Dashell Hammett when he made Yojimbo. The Japanese are masters of taking tropes from other cultures and reinterpreting them through their own cultural lens.
Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven/Battle Beyond the Stars
http://plaeroma.com/2015/05/14/in-which-i-concede-unequivocally-that-the-puppies-have-won-the-hugos/
Maybe this does not have to be a fight to the death. Worth a look.
” The Han were colonizing and imperializing before Rome, and are still colonizing and imperializing today in an era ”
Oh, yeah. The history of Xinjiang and Tibet (within living memory) are instructive. Also the Japanese “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” and the Mongols looting, raping, and burning everything between Hanoi and Warsaw.
James May: “Just look at the privilege wars between feminists right now over the Laura Mixon Hugo nomination. They’re attacking each other every day and taking up sides: white women vs. “women of color.””
I’d missed that. Thanks for the tip. I see that they’re also tearing into Teresa Nielsen Hayden for being racist. Comedy. Gold. Couldn’t happen to two nicer people.
The funniest thing about this entire weird feminist movement that’s arisen in SFF the last few years SJWs don’t get is that we’re basically playing Devil’s Advocate and pranking SJWs every time we mention them. In other words we’re judging them by their own obsessions and rules, not ours.
Along comes this movement that claims a heightened interest in and knowledge of racism, sexism and oppression and with razor-thin rules hardly anyone can pass. It’s a mine field of racial micro aggressions, anti-ethnocentricity, anti-segregation, gendered slurs, ableisms, proper depiction of women in film and literature, tabu paintings of women in chain-mail bikinis that wishes to create a more just society by eliminating even the slightest sign of stereotyping and group defamation that marginalizes anyone.
So how do SJWs accomplish this? By using the most obsessively consistent flat out hate speech, racial and sexual insults, Jim Crow-like double standards and group defamation anyone’s ever seen in the entire history of SFF.
You have to be insane or hopelessly naive to imagine people who spend every day on Twitter and blogs making up paranoid reasons to make whites, men and heterosexuals look bad are operating from any kind of just or neutral stance. The example above by Junot Diaz speaks to both a race-obsession and historical ignorance I’ve frankly never seen outside something like a white supremacist site of idiots who claim whites built the pyramids and invented dirt from sheer whiteness.
White men can’t even sit on a convention panel all together without being lit up as racist Men’s Right’s Activists who haven’t examined their privilege but these goggle-eyes feminists will claim women invented SF because of Frankenstein and blacks are central to all SF without a hint of their own supremacist ramblings.
There is no greater mainstream assemblage of segregation and unflattering racial and sexual stereotypes anywhere in the West today than in intersectional feminism. They are the wrong-way KKK that couldn’t shoot straight in every sense of the term.
The funniest thing about this entire weird feminist movement that’s arisen in SFF the last few years SJWs don’t get is that we’re basically playing Devil’s Advocate and pranking SJWs every time we mention them. In other words we’re judging them by their own obsessions and rules, not ours.
For those playing along at home, this is a very important bit. We’re perfectly fine with (in fact, we’d prefer) a set of rules that allow everyone. They’re the ones insisting on rules that exclude people, and these rules are never applied to them. We’re just pointing out they’re in violation of their own rules.
The use of alternate definitions is a way to attempt to rewrite the rules so that the progressive bias is automatically factored in, for example “I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender” rewrites the definition of racism and sexism. We’re right to reject those alternate definitions, because they rig the game.
Dr. L, I’d love to see a link to that. Hoist by one’s own petard is a joy to witness.
(And getting a chance to use that expression PROPERLY is another joy. Remember kids, it’s “by” not “on” and the word Hoist there means hurt, not lifted.)
Mausre – Actually, it’s “with,” assuming you’re referring to the Shakespeare quote.
Dr. Mauser: see, for example, http://colorblue.dreamwidth.org/100144.html
Yep, they have no clue.
Before these feminists dingbats came along in SFF it was live and let live and no hate speech. We just want to go back to that. I don’t want to rag anyone, but I’m not taking this racist shit from these people either. When they start talking about white male power fantasies and how racist white men have tried to keep themselves central and everyone else out and all that typical bullshit from Kate Elliott, N.K. Jemisin and Liz Bourke at Tor and all the rest of that daily onslaught they can go fuck themselves.
What, an anti-Puppy with constructive ideas? Glad to see that.
From the Wall Street Journal, here is an example of the stupid lies these feminist asshats routinely sell:
“Mr. Scalzi likens the Puppies’ campaigns to the backlash that women and minorities have faced in other geek-culture arenas—notably ‘Gamergate,’ the videogamers’ campaign widely associated with threats against feminist videogame critics.”
What he really meant is that this feminist movement attacks whites, men and heterosexuals as a group. When they push back, SJWs lie and say those same identities attacked amount to a racist, anti-woman, anti-diversity “backlash” that was in reality there all along. Who’s stupid enough to believe that if a white guy walked into a black neighborhood and started yelling racial slurs what he would experience would be a “backlash” against whites from blacks?
“FEMINIST LOGIC: 1. Constantly denounce males. 2. Males object to being denounced. 3. This proves men are haters.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) April 18, 2015”
This is the truth: feminists in our larger genre do not “critique” video-games, movies, comics or SFF. They critique men, whites and heterosexuals using group defamation. What is a movie reviewer who gives thumbs down to every movie? What are the Las Vegas odds there?
My initial objection to the SP3 slate was that I had the impression that you were asking people to nominate works that they hadn’t read (or seen, in the case of the Dramatic Presentations). I posted this on Larry Correia’s site, and he immediately refuted me with references to all of the work he’s done to boost various people’s careers. It took me very little time perusing his website to see that he works almost tirelessly to get new authors recognized, both by mentioning them on his webpage and by organizing “book bombs”. So that criticism went out the window, and I was so impressed by Mr Correia that I’m now taking his online writing course.
That being said, I really don’t think you can talk about SP3 without talking about the Rabid Puppies. Yes, SP3 and the Rabid Puppies are two different things, and yes, you and Mr Correia are not Vox Day, but I think you STILL need to acknowledge what happened here. Vox Day took your SP3 slate, tweaked it by dropping a few works and adding a lot more, and published it as the Rabid Puppies slate. To put it simply, he hijacked your slate. And he ended up getting more nominees with the Rabid Puppies slate than you did with the SP3 slate. I have encouraged people to remember that SP3 and the Rabid Puppies are two very different things (and I even got George R R Martin to acknowledge on his blog that he shouldn’t lump the two together), but I think it’s important to admit that a man who is essentially a professional troll has stolen your idea (and your slate) and is using it to advance his own agenda.
I also think it’s clear that, regardless of how the Hugos Awards fall out (and I think No Award may be given in several categories), Vox Day is going to do exactly the same thing with the Sad Puppies 4 slate next year. It isn’t fair, but that’s almost certainly what’s going to happen. Which means Kate Paulk is going to be accused of all the same crap that you and Mr Correia have been accused of this year. And more importantly, people like Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet are going to decline their Hugo Award nominations.
So I think that that’s the state of play right now. As for me, I’m waiting for my voter packet to be available so I can start digging into the nominees. I’ve seen all of the Dramatic Presentations and have already ranked those, and I’ll rank as much as I can read when the packets go out. And I’ll rank them based on merit, not their presence or absence on the SP3 or the Rabid Puppy Slate.
I don’t understand how the ballot is “more inclusive” as Brad suggests in the OP. Granted… I’m only looking at the literary awards, but I don’t think that is an uncommon thing to do.
Can someone elaborate on the inclusiveness comment? I just don’t see it apart from a handful of female short fiction nominees.
It destroys trust, when people know there is no true fairness in the accusations and threats being leveled against them, but that those around them, those who have the ability to defend them, either think the attacks are justified strictly on the basis of identity, or that they somehow don’t matter. And this damage also degrades our community’s health. It makes us all the more vulnerable to the flames.
This is from Laura Mixon’s May 1st blog post. How’s that for irony?
@Frank Probst
I plan to suggest to Kate that she ask Vox to come up with his own slate for next time. I hope others will echo that suggestion. I have no reason to believe that if Vox is asked he will not be willing to cooperate. The Puppies have made their point and now it is time to settle down for the long haul. The goal is not to dominate but simply to diversify the nominations so that everyone gets a fair shot. The more slates the better and we can start with the Puppies.
Vox was all ready to go No Award with his people. He was asked not to and he has remained true to his word. I trust he will do so in the future.
All feminists like Mixon are routinely hypocrites when it comes to this stuff. They want a world where you first check the race and gender of the driver before handing out speeding tickets. One rule for them, another for you – it’s their silly power/privilege punching up theory that guarantees they’re never wrong and we’re never right.
Here is a truism: within intersectionalism the enemy’s random demography always translates to an ideology and one that’s supremacist and oppressive. That’s how the entire Golden Age of SF translates to racist and sexist; it had a white male demography and there’s an end to it; feminist don’t even read it – they just KNOW. In other words intersectional feminism operates exactly like the KKK.
@Lord Darque
That sounds good in theory, but in practice, we have no idea what the landscape will look like next year. I’m going to try to go to Sasquan and sit through all of the Rules Committee meetings to try to keep the nominations process from being changed, but there are all kinds of proposals to “fix” the system floating around out there. There’s also the possibility of “counter slates” next year, which will be even more of a headache. And potential nominees will have to decide if they want to be on this slate or that one. As a relative newcomer to the scene (I joined last year.), I feel like I’ve walked into the middle of a not-so-civil war.
There also appears to be a significant uptick in the number of Supporting Memberships since the nominations were announced. My personal opinion (which I have absolutely no data support) is that these are casual sci-fi/fantasy fans who had no idea that they could vote for the Hugos (and get a nominations packet that’s probably worth far more than $40) until now. I’ve seen some hand-wringing about “these people” being members of Vox Day’s personal army. (These same hand-wringers seem to think Vox Day is some sort of James Bond-style supervillian.) I guess it’s possible, but $40 is well above my price point to vote in an awards ceremony that I have no real interest in, so I rather doubt that this is the case.
Just my 2 cents.
Sasha: there are over 4 billion pages on the Internet. Feel free to find another that isn’t a waste of your time.
And poof, just like that, Clamps evaporates into the digital ether.
I’ve come to a series of conclusions over the past few days.
1. Vox Day may very well be a racist denotatively.
2. However, he is definitely not a white supremacist, which is the connotation of racist, these days.
3. He is also almost certainly a culturist–this I can see no problem with, honestly.
4. I suspect he has misogynistic tendencies by now, although he didn’t used to. This, however, is the result of notion 5, which is…
5. He is like the SJWs, in that he tends to view individual people in terms of how they relate to his desirable cultural objectives–that is to say, cultural survival. At the very least, this is how he chooses to present himself, which causes problems.
6. He follows ideas to their logical conclusions, no matter where that leads him, and isn’t always good at figuring out that moral repugnancy is useful.
7. All of the having been said, he is but one man–with a great following, but one man. The SJWs have dozens as bad as him if not worse–they simply turn their flaming nozzles of tolerance towards people Day doesn’t aim at.
Chester… define “inclusive.” You wonder how this list of new nominees is more “inclusive” than the old and then point to…. the plumbing of some of the authors. What PLEASE DEAR GAWD TELL ME does my freaking VAGINA have to do with my ability to write a book?
Because I really want to know.
If I write a story that hits all the proper ideologies, observes all the no-nos, satisfies all the Sin Seekers, has the proper character mix, and the right “moral to the story”… pretty much like all the other stories, but I have a vagina, and Tom is Pacific Islander, and Susan is gay, and Sam is Asian (we don’t really care which sort of Asian, since we’re Americans and couldn’t tell a Filippina from an Okinawan from Nepalese but we’re “sophisticated” and always ask for chopsticks at the Thai restaurant)… and we’ve all crossed our T’s and dotted our I’s and told proper stories about the future… how is that “inclusive” on anything but the most superficial level possible?
That wasn’t meant to sound crabby, Chester. Sorry.
Serious answer… because “inclusive” means that no one gets excluded because of those superficial things, and “inclusive” means that no one is excluded because they have the wrong sorts of ideologies, politics, or religion, and “inclusive” means that no one is excluded because they write stories about the wrong things in the wrong way.
Since the Sad Puppy claim is that in recent years all “inclusivity” was increasingly superficial while excluding whole swaths of books and authors on the grounds of their subject matter or politics, the Sad Puppy recommendations were more inclusive because the books themselves were more diverse (thus the cries of “hypocrite! this story doesn’t have any guns in it!” which was a hoot,) and the recommended authors represented the spectrum of political views instead of a narrow segment (where those views were known.)
Timeline of controversial incidents in the core SFF community:
April 2012 Saladin Ahmed’s Is Game of Thrones Too White post at Salon
May 2012 John Scalzi’s White Privilege post
May 2012 First Anita Sarkeesian gender tropes in video games Kickstarter
Sept 2012 N.K. Jemisin accuses fandom of being “racist as fuck”
March 2013 Adria Richards Donglegate harassment hoax
April 2013 John Scalzi attacks men in “geekdom”
May 2013 SFWA Bulletin “lady”/Red Sonja cover incident
May 2013 Kameron Hurley’s eventually Hugo-winning hoax post about women erased from military history
June 2013 N. K. Jemisin Australian Continuum Guest of Honor Speech
July 2013 Mary Robinette Kowal Dear Rabid Weasels Please Shut the Fuck Up post
August 2013 Jim Hines makes racial innuendoes over photo of WorldCon chairs
January 2014 Alex Dally MacFarlane calls for an end to binary gender in SFF
February 2014 Feminists on Twitter swarm Waterstones Bookstore male book display
March 2014 Jonathan Ross hounded out of hosting the Hugos
April 2014 Damien Walter future-is-queer piece at The Guardian
May 2014 Mary Robinette Kowal Tweets “only one award went to a white male” after the Nebulas
June 2014 Women Destroy Science Fiction Kickstarter released by Lightspeed Magazine
Aug 2014 Gamergate
People have to stop thinking this is some attack on conservatives going back years. It goes back 3 years in full flower and you can extend that to 6 in its bare beginnings with Racefail in 2009. It is not an attack on conservatives. It is an attack on whites, men and heterosexuals fully in keeping with intersectionalist obsessions. Anyone who disagrees is automatically called a “conservative” or “Men’s Rights Activist.” There is a mountain of quoted anti-white, anti-male hate speech from core SFF’s editors, award-winning authors, heads of literary orgs, serial convention panelists and feted bloggers that easily runs into the thousands.
So you can add at least 10,000 Tweets of racial incitement and man-hatred to that list. I could cite you 100 just today from those same people. That is all aggression based on nothing. This is not our “obsession”; we are reacting to obsessive daily hate speech aimed squarely at us.
These dust-ups are not about wars, abortion, social programs, etc. Every single one of them is specifically filtered through an intersectionalist feminist ideological lens and in every instance it is men or whites who are the culprit. What more do you need?
In the 1960s there was a similar issue with Hollywood films becoming too violent. But the questioning never crossed the line into the group defamation of Hollywood Jews or men but an analogy to the former and exactly the latter is what is happening today (See: Age of Ultron), and you can throw in whites too. To these nutty feminists, skin and sex one is born with equals culture, failure and even an ideology, unless it’s rightsex rightrace, then… not. People know the difference between the two sides of that line and so push back has happened.
Imagine all these same scenarios where the failings of Jews or blacks are said to be the issue and it becomes more stark. The reason it becomes more stark is as I have said many times: intersectionalists are literalists who not only value their bigotry and identity over principle but consider themselves racists by their own standards. They are unable to make such simple comparisons; or perhaps they just don’t care. The effect from the outside is the same. You can’t run around saying Jews make violent films, blacks violent vulgar music, and white men privileged, racist and sexist SFF. Artists express culture, not their genes. You can’t pretend this type of group defamation is legitimate critique.
“Kameron Hurley @KameronHurley 6h6 hours ago Some dude tried to mansplain ‘realism’ of female resistance fighters to me.I SPENT MY ACADEMIC CAREER STUDYING FEMALE RESISTANCE FIGHTERS”
Some broad tried to womansplain military history to me and got two Hugos for it. Go find the over one million dead privileged misogynists who’ve died for America which you’re erased and insult daily. When you’re done go pie-chart a Vet’s Hospital and insist on diversity. Then occupy a Draft Office in fierce feminist fashion. Until then STFU. I had to sign up for the draft – BY LAW! That’s real LEGAL discrimination, not some daffy bullshit about “systems” you fem asshats make up.
julueapascal,
Did Brad mean to apply his inclusivity statement to the authors, the stories, or both? I can see that the authors are predominantly white American males, so it is hard to see the inclusiveness on that front. Hence the mention of female authors that you perhaps read too much into.
I haven’t read all of the stories yet. How are they more inclusive?
Thanks,
Chester
I can see that the authors are predominantly white American males, so it is hard to see the inclusiveness on that front.
Looking at the list (and which list are you looking at, Brad’s recommendations or the final ballot?), how can you tell that the authors are white? The media that commented initially didn’t even notice any of the women on the recommendation list, so at least you’re doing better than that, but that’s a low bar to clear.
The fact that you’re even playing ‘count the diversity’ is rather telling. What is the correct percentage of women that should be on the recommendation list? We didn’t exclude anyone from the recommendation list on any basis, so why should we expect the recommendation list to match some random distribution?
Simple answer: the recommendation list is more inclusive since we didn’t exclude anyone.
Civilis,
Brad’s list. I’ve also looked at the rabid puppies slate in the areas it differed. A little bit of clicking on author pages and wikipedia provided some basic information about the authors, but there is only so much we can find out that way.
It is harder to find similar information about the stories through reviews and such, especially for the short stories. Hopefully some of the stories I haven’t read will be in the Hugo packet.
As for your other questions… You are reading too much into my question.
Although, now that you mention a distribution, it’d be pretty epic (and worldly) if we only allowed one person per continent to be up for each award. We’d be hard pressed not to have some inclusiveness if we did that. Although, that one writer from Antarctica is gonna be a shoe-in if he/she is any good.
Regards,
Chester
Chester,
It’s called ideological inclusivity, rather than playing “check the EEOC boxes.”
More generally, this is the main problem with the whole debate, and why there really isn’t a debate. One side contends that the Hugo has been taken over by a bunch of people who all look different (and, even then, really aren’t), but, when you talk to them, sound exactly alike, and ask “how is that inclusive”. The other side, meantime, contends that the previously mentioned side isn’t inclusive because they look similar, ignoring the ideological diversity among them. They also tend to imitate the Onion.
http://www.theonion.com/article/college-encourages-lively-exchange-of-idea-38496
“Cora Buhlert @CoraBuhlert
· 9h 9 hours ago
So radical atheists are in favour of religious fiction (and that’s what many puppy nominees are) now? Will wonders never cease?”
Atheists tolerant of religious stories? Diversity! 🙂
@ James May
[I] The reason it becomes more stark is as I have said many times: intersectionalists are literalists who not only value their bigotry and identity over principle but consider themselves racists by their own standards. [/i]
Correction here. They have redefined racism to mean you “historically have had power”. This has been pushed in several of their circles. It’s a convenient definition. It makes it so even if they have power now or have had power in the recent past until now they are still not racists. The confusing part comes in when they rail against Jews over the Palestinians. Jews historically have not been very powerful. I would also argue that when the Palestinians were Asyrians and part of the Ottoman Empire they were more powerful than Jews living in Europe. That all has conveniently been forgotten though.
“Cora Buhlert @CoraBuhlert · 8h 8 hours ago @likecroft Ours are pretty tiny, too, and only get big once you get bitten.”
Belaboring the obvious from a psycho-sexual gender feminist.
Josh, what intersectionalists do is take America circa 1910 and freeze it. They then extend it to the present day and far into the past, and globally. That’s why there’s no colonialist Spain, the Balkans or Mughals. No Arab and African slavery. No Arab or Turkish privilege. The entire world and its history becomes a woman-hating Jim Crow county. Eurocentrism is just fine as long as it’s anything bad like slavery or colonialism. If it’s art or inventions suddenly people of color pop up in 5th century York and medieval Norway and “multiculturalism” is insisted upon. Intersectionalists are the most transparently stupid and patently unfair people in existence. I’m amazed anyone falls for their con games. The more I read them the more they seem like predictable robots convinced they are the ultimate in edgy perception.
The confusing part comes in when they rail against Jews over the Palestinians.
That is an artifact of economics and geopolitics. Social Justice economics is generally linked to Socialist politics, and one can find a lot of Social Justice groups that are even linked to unabashedly Communist groups (take Code Pink and ANSWER as an example). The most generous explanation is that an idealistic view was taken of conditions in the Warsaw Pact and its allies because they were explicitly Socialist (Cuba has free health care for everyone! Sure, it’s horrible health care unless you’re buddies with Castro and it comes at the price of enslaving the population. But it’s free!) and consequently, the West, for being Capitalist and opposing the good Socialists, became necessarily the bad guys. Israel went from ‘Good Land of Socialist Kibbutzim’ to ‘Evil Colonialist Power’ when it became a US ally, and the Arab states that allied with the Soviets, despite their horrible Human Rights record and lack of basic civil rights, became the good guys. Add in Group Identity Politics, and the Social Justice logic becomes ‘Israelis are Jews, and so it’s ok for the underprivileged Arabs to transfer their hatred of Israeli Jews to Jews in general.’
Read some classic Scalzi (as well as The Usual Subjects, puppy & otherwise) ‘wisdom’ in today’s WSJ:
https://archive.is/lzVnE
“The most generous explanation is that an idealistic view was taken of conditions in the Warsaw Pact”
That’s because the scripts that these bots are running were all written in Moscow prior to 1991.
The scripts haven’t had any patches or software updates since then, so they no longer have even a nodding acquaintance with reality.
“Although, now that you mention a distribution, it’d be pretty epic (and worldly) if we only allowed one person per continent to be up for each award. We’d be hard pressed not to have some inclusiveness if we did that. Although, that one writer from Antarctica is gonna be a shoe-in if he/she is any good.”
One author who is *very* good is a South African now living on Flinders (Flanders?) Island off of Tasmania, which is about as close to Antarctica as you can get for an actual year round residence. But you know what? The “inclusivity” that you seem concerned with would exclude him on the basis that he is exactly like, in every important way, a white man from Iowa. Same-same.
People are “overreacting” to your question of “inclusivity” because you seem to be viewing “inclusive” in a myopic and, frankly, damaging way. Ie,.. “what color is your skin”. Not… where did you grow up and what are your life experiences? Not… are you something other than American or a first generation immigrant? Because a white man who grew up in South Africa is exactly the same as a white man who grew up in Wisconsin is exactly the same as a white man who is a citizen of Prague.
On the face of it this is not only *stupid* but unbearably US-centric. We stick our own very silly “diversity” template on the World and call ourselves virtuous. We nominate and count and figure on this US-centric check list and instead of looking at the *stories*, which are all bland and similar, we are supposed to have a party because we’ve checked skin tone, lifted skirts, and inquired after sexual preferences.
@ Orgell
Do you think the WSJ gave an accurate portrayal of the various sides? It seemed fair to Mr Correia, Mr Torgersen, and Mr Martin to me. It gave a very negative portrayal of Vox Day, and I thought the last paragraph was unfairly snarky, but otherwise, it seemed like one of the more neutral pieces that I’ve read.
I would disagree with Mr Torgersen that Michael Crichton was being snubbed. I think it’s far more likely that Crichton didn’t need the recognition and would probably not come to the con to receive the award. You could just as easily say that Stephen King is overlooked every year. My impression is that once you hit “blockbuster success” level, you don’t really need the award, and people tend to nominate other works.
@ Frank,
It was about as fair as could be hoped; while they rode the ‘…popular space yarns, not more literary fiction or tales of diversity’ in, they rode the CHORF ‘They’re gonna have to accept an award from a black woman and a gay man!’ out, though, as well as posting the logos (which only serve to conflate Sad and Rabid in reader’s minds). They also failed to mention the (real) diversity of the Sad slate – while *not* failing to mention the accusations of exclusion.
An ‘Unintended Consequence’ is another mention about how *easy* it is to become part of the process – because if there’s one thing that the Entrenched Powers want, it’s more ‘little people’ poking their paws in the processes.
julieapascal,
You are reading too much into my question and as a result are projecting quite an awful lot of thoughts and opinions on me that are pretty wide of the mark. Feel free to keep slinging shit and calling me a myopic American. It is amusing.
Show me the inclusion. Someone? Anyone? Is it in the stories? Is it the authors?
It’s all well and good to say you are being inclusive, but if your results lacked diversity then your process of including people is clearly flawed.
Regards,
Chester
The stupidity in all of this is were it not for the sudden entrance of this heavily racialized gender studies feminism movement in SFF, no one would be talking about the term “social justice warrior” nor would their even be a Sad Puppies. Vox Day never would’ve been booted from the SFWA and nor would Brad Torgersen and John C. Wright have later resigned.
Most of that action – especially the swarming shaming tactics such as we saw with Jonathan Ross last year – takes place on Twitter. The people most responsible for this movement are still on Twitter muttering about straight white men. File 770 has set itself up as a central clearing house for SP debate. The problem is, he’s collecting nothing from nobodies. In addition, you see the same handful of commenters who clearly don’t have a clue as to what’s been going on. We even had this:
“Chris Hensley on May 16, 2015 at 9:37 pm said:
xdpaul: Serious question here. Who is this SJW faction within fandom and how exactly are you deciding who is, and is not, an SJW?”
The way you critique a thing to avoid cherry-picking is to restrict yourself to the most influential institutions and figures. That means the heads of literary orgs, influential bloggers, Hugo and Nebula nominees, serial convention panelists and editors. Secondly you quote those who may not have that influence but who influence those others and are in turn supported by and interact with them. Mysteriously, the biggest feminist asshats are no-shows.
So the people who never shut up are not being quoted and those who have had nothing to do with this SJW crusade are quoted. The fact they’re creating satirical movie titles with the word “puppies” in them rather than “cis normative” tells the tale: the horse has left the barn and we’re hearing a lot of barn stories.
This has allowed SJWs to duck what might’ve otherwise been withering fire considering the attention SP has drawn. Consider it a missed opportunity. The chance to show how truly nuts these people are has been squandered.
N. K. Jemisin wrote a post about Sad Puppies that is so astonishing it defies belief, though it is par for the course with her. Naturally, it fell into a memory-hole. Eric Flint bizarrely said we never name names, as if he’d been living in a cave these last three years and even more bizarrely thinks the term “SJW” somehow involves Lincoln. You can’t get more out of touch on this issue and remain on Earth.
Mr. Hoster you’re asking us a question we don’t consider a valid concept in the first place, so we have no answer. To us terms like “diversity,” “inclusion” and “underrepresented” literally make no sense; it is semantic and intellectual gibberish. It is not a principled question since it is never asked in relation to anything other than straight white males; no Africa, no Asian films, no Bollywood – nothing. It’s a scam.
We are not identity-addicts. Even if the concept of “diversity” was one we ever thought of, we certainly wouldn’t align it with race and sex.
We don’t think there was anything broken in the first place. People can say what they want about Hurley, D. Jose Older, Jemisin and Hurley, but they’re amateurish story-tellers compared to old school. Go read A. E. Van Vogt’s “Ressurection.” At 8,000 words it is a marvel of compactness and mystery. That story’s from 19 frickin’ 48 and we have no one who can do that today. Then go read that meandering mess at twice the length called “Wakulla Springs” which doesn’t even have any SF or F. I don’t think “diversity” means what you think it does.
If people are so goddam nuts about diversity, get on a plane, or show us the obvious benefits, cuz I’m not seeing it. Where is this wise person or artist who is a shining example of the wonders of diversity? Where is even one example to hold up as a torch and say “See! This is what I mean. This is great!”
I don’t think Brad resigned from SFWA. I know he was considering it a while back, but I hadn’t heard that he did leave.
Chester! Define “inclusion”. Do. It. Define that word that I’m going all weird over. What do you mean by it? You demand to be shown “inclusion”. Define it so we can talk about the same thing. Okay?
What had been happening (I’m going to assume here that you actually do want to know) from the point of view of many Puppies is that the Hugos had become inbred. (Shall I define “inbred?”) The stories that won were “meh” at best, and the nominees seemed to be drawn from a rather small pool that was more or less ideologically homogeneous. While this increased homogeneity was going on the same rather inbred group was patting itself on the back for being “inclusive”… because the “white men” were either progressives, or gay… and all the white women were also progressives or activists… and the few non-whites were also progressives. Very very proud of themselves these inbred progressives, because they managed to *exclude* some imagined evil empire of white men who must not have been progressive, or something, since there were still plenty of white men, even straight ones, that seemed to be totally acceptable.
This is not diversity.
I think I explained this before. Maybe in too colorful a manner? So I’ll go for bland.
This is not diversity. It’s uniformity. It’s homogeneity. And it’s not inclusive by any reasonable definition of the word.
What did Brad do for inclusiveness? He picked books and stories he liked instead of authors who shared his beliefs and politics.
Pretend not to understand this and ask me about skin color again.
Apparently “diversity” means greater artistry in some fashion. But if you look at the mid-60s, the pool of talent was not only greater than today but hall of fame. Race, sex and nationality bring nothing to the table that resembles artistry. Insisting it does will in fact diminish your pool of talent. Here’s something too obvious for SJWs to understand: the best people to build a building are the best people to build a building. You cannot pre-imagine or pre-assume artistry based on a passport, race or sex. If you could, you could pre-imagine stupidity or boredom as well. That is flat out ridiculous. How does that in any way address the ability to write good horror or bring dramatic tension about. An all-star team is an all-star team; it is not simply different looks. This entire thing about diversity is completely empty and it has demonstrably been used as a platform to attack whites, men, and heterosexuals, since no one else is ever asked to diversify. Nobody and no other countries outside the West. That’s a con game. And could someone read E. Hoffman Price and an actual Chinese guy writing Chinese myth and tell me the difference in a blind test?
In 1965 we had white males like Poul Anderson, Jack Vance, Ray Bradbury, A. E. Van Vogt, Larry Niven, Robert Silverberg, Clifford Simak, James Schmitz, Jack Williamson, Frederik Pohl, Cordwainer Smith, Robert Heinlein, Robert Sheckley, Gordon Dickson, Murray Leinster, Walter M. Miller, Jr., Harry Harrison, Theodore Sturgeon, Phillip K. Dick, Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert, John Brunner, Roger Zelazny, E. E. ‘Doc’ Smith, Edmond Hamilton, Fritz Lieber, H. Warner Munn, Harlan Ellison, James Blish, Charles Harness, Thomas Burnett Swan, Robert Block, John Jakes, Manly Wade Wellman, Brian Aldiss, Raymond Jones, Frank Herbert, Lin Carter, L. Sprague de Camp, Michael Moorcock. And so what? It wasn’t on purpose and it wasn’t socially engineered or exclusive any more than fly-fishing is. Are people being marginalized in fly-fishing?
Now that’s an all-star team. And there’s nothing remotely comparable to that today not only when it comes to the depth of talent but the breadth of unique visions.
Milo Yiannopoulos retweeted Stephen Taylor @stephen_taylor · 8h 8 hours ago It’s racist when you play a zero-sum game by dividing people into groups based upon race. So stop it, you racists. (4/4)
Milo Yiannopoulos retweeted Stephen Taylor @stephen_taylor · 8h 8 hours ago By promoting white people to a level of superiority, in order to collectively shame them, in order to equalize them… is racist. (3/4)
Milo Yiannopoulos retweeted Stephen Taylor @stephen_taylor · 8h 8 hours ago The rest of us, who aren’t trying to poison societal discourse along racial lines, like to treat everyone the same regardless of race. (2/4)
Milo Yiannopoulos retweeted Stephen Taylor @stephen_taylor · 8h 8 hours ago The white supremacists you find on twitter today are those that claim that white people have ‘privilege’. (1/4)
Milo Yiannopoulos @Nero · 7h 7 hours ago @stephen_taylor bravo
@Chester, are you aware that Larry is officially not White? (no matter what his picture looks like) according to the government criteria he’s Hispanic.
The SP3 slate included different genders, ethnicities, politics, and preferred sex parters. By the criteria of the SJW side, that’s beyond merely diverse (the SJW side doesn’t care about politics, as long as you agree with their viewpoint). Remember that last year, the SJW cry was about how wonderful it was that there were no men on the final ballot of a major award (was it the Nebulas??), but 4 of 5 where white women (the remaining one a hispanic woman), and that was such a victory for diversity.
The claim that SP3 is an all white male slate is so far off that when EW claimed that, Brad responded with a short statement that made it clear that it crossed the line into libel