The unfortunate case of Rachel Dolezal is another reminder that narratives cannot survive without facts. It doesn’t matter how fervently you believe the narrative, nor how effectively you proselytize the narrative to others, if your narrative doesn’t have facts at the base of it, your narrative will crumble. Sooner, or later.
Because what happens is that disinterested third parties — not for your narrative, and not against your narrative — ask the question, “What’s it all about?”
They will begin to curiously parse through your story and your rhetoric, seeking the bedrock of your statements. And if there’s no “there” there, the third party is going to conclude that you’re mistaken, deluded, dishonest, or some combination thereof.
In Dolezal’s case, she wanted to redefine herself. So she came up with a narrative she wanted the world to believe — about herself, and who she is. Also, what she’s been through and what she’s experienced. At some point, the facts stopped mattering to Dolezal more than her own narrative mattered to her. And now she’s in a lot of hot water for passing herself off as someone she’s not, and she’s getting raked over the coals for it.
Because Dolezal’s narrative — about who and what she was — didn’t have any facts to support it.
Unfortunately, the internet and social media lend themselves more to narrative-building and spreading, than they do to fact-finding and evidence collecting. This is reinforced by the modern notion — which has been especially popular in social academics — that truth is merely a matter of perspective. Which is in direct contradiction with the Enlightenment principle that the world is accessible to humans through the testing and verification of ideas. Testing which can be replicated by anyone, anywhere, and yield the same results. That thing we call science.
Twenty years ago, physics professor Alan Sokal set out to prove that some of his compatriots in the social sciences were a little too enamored with narrative. So he typed up a brilliantly nonsensical paper he called “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” In Sokal’s own words, “Could [I] publish [in a leading social sciences journal] an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions?”
The answer was, yes. Which kicked off what has sometimes been called The Sokal Affair, or the Sokal Hoax.
Click here for Dr. Sokal’s own, rather exhaustively documented history of the whole thing. Pay special attention to Sokal’s explanation on why he felt it necessary to spoof his colleagues. His chief concern? That evidence and facts were taking a back seat to trendy theory, and an increasingly disturbing reliance on narrative, over empirical truth.
Two decades later, and we’re wrestling with the rhetorical python like never before. Because social media has allowed narratives of all kinds to spread like wildfire, gain support, even influence business and public policy, impact local and national elections, and shape how we look at the world as a whole.
Now, this has usually been true to a certain extent. Narrative has always been with us. But never in history have narratives been able to sprout and grow with such rapidity. Because now all it takes for a narrative to be planted, is for somebody on Twitter — especially a celebrity, or other public figure — to say something outlandish or controversial or provocative, and within twenty four hours that statement will have garnered tens of thousands of re-Tweets, “likes” on Facebook, blog articles discussing the statement, “followers” backing up the statement, and so on and so forth.
But eventually, when enough time has elapsed, and people have calmed down, the inevitable question will be asked: what’s it all about? And the digging will begin. And for those outside of the narrative — not pro, not con — a picture will emerge. And if there are few to no facts at the bottom of the narrative, that picture isn’t going to be a kind one. Adherents of the narrative will come off looking foolish, or worse. Especially if critical inquiry causes adherents to adopt a fortress mentality — circling the wagons — in order to defend what is, to them, a truth.
Which takes me back to juxtaposing the Enlightenment premise — that the universe is knowable and objective, through testing and experimentation — against the Post-Modern premise that facts and truth are relative, malleable, or can change from person to person, and culture to culture.
I am old enough to remember when the United States was locked in a grim ideological conflict with the Soviet Union. Beyond politics and economics, the Cold War was very much a battle of narratives. And for several decades in the 20th century it looked like the communist narrative might win out. Perhaps two thirds of the globe was either directly or indirectly controlled by one or more Soviet socialist regimes. And there were many who gleefully predicted that the Soviet way was the inevitable destiny of history. In Nikita Khrushchev’s own words, “We will bury you.”
Now, it’s entirely possible that Khrushchev believed what he said. Millions of people did. Even many people inside the United States — people who thought Soviet socialism was a great idea, and would inevitably come to America. Once capitalism broke down, and the workers rose up and overthrew the capitalist system.
What really happened?
Well, the Soviet narrative did not have enough facts to support it. Despite decades of entrenchment, and an iron-clad political enforcement of doctrine, Soviet socialism was not economically viable. Nor were the populations in those nations willing to endlessly endure the privation and control over speech and thought that was necessary to enforce what was, in the end, a flawed political and economic model. The Soviet Union collapsed. And much of the rest of the Soviet world went with it. Even China has, over time, seen itself “perverted” by capitalism, which is an economic system rooted in the world the way it really is, not the world the way we wish it might be.
Those few Marxist nations — Cuba, North Korea — still hanging on in quiet desperation, clearly do so on borrowed time. The “inevitability” of the Marxist system . . . turned out to be a fantasy concocted by those who so fervently believed in the fantasy, that even to this day, those in love with the fantasy will insist that it’s not a fantasy. For them, the narrative is simply too alluring, and too powerful. They are caught up in the narrative to such an extent that the facts — everything that’s happened since the Berlin Wall fell — don’t matter.
But that doesn’t mean strong emotion can overcome reality.
Right now, social media (and the social sciences, which play an ever-larger role in social media) tend to run on a lot of strong emotion. “If we feel it, it must be true!” That seems to be the motto. Your (collective) passion about a thing, is more important than the objective facts. Or so you (collectively) are told.
I disagree. I think all narratives which rely more on emotion, than on facts, unravel eventually. No matter how much they flatter our preconceptions. No matter how much they tell us what we want to hear. No matter if they frame the world for us in a way that we find most comfortable, or at least, most correct. All the correct framing in the universe can’t defeat evidence, if your framing is simply stories constructed on stories, which have been constructed on still other stories. Sooner or later, your stories have to be supportable. There has to be independently verifiable proof. The kind of thing someone not for you, and not against you, can pick up and look at and say, “Yes, okay, I think this verifies what you’re talking about.”
Earlier this year, a certain entertainment tabloid ran a rather outlandish story that was heavily laden with narrative, and which fell promptly apart once the narrative was exposed to scrutiny. The head of a major publisher recently noted that this narrative was in direct contradiction to the facts, which he outlined — as the tabloid was also forced to outline — so that he could avoid having his company linked to the perpetuation of that very same false narrative. What did he get for his trouble? The head of the publisher was attacked by people who are so thoroughly married to the narrative, almost nothing will dissuade them from it. Not facts. Not evidence. Not a trusted authority. Not even when the narrative actively crumbles beneath their feet.
It’s the narrative, or nothing!
Perhaps these individuals need a reminder that the graveyard of history is populated by the headstones of empires, nations, businesses, and movements, which all preferred narratives, to facts? Evidence matters, people. The courts (thankfully) require it. Journalism should too, though journalism has too often been guilty of spreading narrative over facts, of late. Which has resulted in some rather shameful moments.
This is a tricksy period for Western civilization. There’s a lot of well-intended talk about how we need to re-examine our flawed past, so that we can build a better future. I fear that future will be ill-served by narratives — or by children raised to believe that narratives are more important than truth. “I deny your reality, and substitute my own!” may be a funny oft-quoted phrase, but for a lot of people — especially those locked into narratives — it’s become gospel. And an unhealthy, even dangerous gospel at that. Our world literally depends on us being able to agree that 1 + 1 = 2. We rely on the common notion that many aspects of our world really are objective, and that this objectivity isn’t changed simply because of ethnic, gender, cultural, or sexual reference points.
Narratives which flout objectivity — and the narrative-minded who espouse them — are not just foolish, they’re destructive. It cost enormous blood and treasure for the Soviet “experiment” to rise, rule, and collapse. Ironically, most of that blood and treasure came from within the Soviet nations themselves. The unmarked graves of the many gulags, sing with the ghosts of men, women, and children, who were all deemed to be in contradiction of the narrative. And so they were sent away. Usually, to die.
We in the West think it can’t happen here. But it can.
All we have to do is tell ourselves that the narrative matters more than reality, more than the individual integrity of our fellow human beings, and more than our consciences.
In the end, the baseless narratives always fold. How much damage they do (prior to, and during the folding) depends on whether we nip them in the bud now, or allow them to flower and bear fruit later.
Brad R. Torgersen 
Deep bow, sir. Deep bow.
Well spoken, Brad. There appear to be two basic hostile ideological groups facing each other: The cultural Marxists—those we call “SJW’s”—are “people of the narrative.” Those of us who oppose them—call us libertarians, conservatives, Constitutionalists, whatever—are “people of the truth.” The narrative sometimes—but only sometimes—corresponds to the truth, but thus must always be tested, and re-tested, again and again, to maintain congruency with the truth, no matter *what* the narrative is.
It’s not easy, especially since the majority at any given time appear to be supportive of narrative over truth. That’s why the communists in the 20th century were so successful for a time. That sucks, eh? :–)
I’m still sick of hearing about this deluded woman, except that someone made a brilliant animated .gif with a brief shot from Michael Jackson’s Black or White video.
The latest trend I’ve seen is that liberals are trying to rehabilitate Margaret Sanger, saying that all these quotes from her are made up. And in the last day I’ve seen two entirely different threads where they tried to insist that Tim McVeigh was a devout Christian, etc. etc. (One linked to an article from that BASTION of honest liberal thought, Alternet, (spit) that said there’s been no Liberal domestic terrorism since 1981, well, at least none that KILLED anyone. Property damage doesn’t count.) There may or may not be a liberal Journo-list, but there is a Gestalt.
But Brad! Only those evil Conservative Christians have beliefs not meeting the Facts. [Sarcasm]
I had a stroke nearly eight years ago, that attacked my memory and cognitive abilities. The first few years afterwards were like living in a fog. Being naturally a little reclusive, I became extremely reclusive.
The last three years or so, when the writing took root, things started to come back, like my vocabulary. I can now usually remember enough that I can spend the evening writing without going looking for the dictionary.
My point is, as I began to reengage with the real world, I’ve been appalled by how the narrative needs no facts to back it up.
Much of the climate scare for instance has been debunked by real climate scientists. Not totally debunked, but there isn’t any hard evidence to support a lot of the “narrative”. Like mankind being totally responsible for the current warm cycle. Really? Anyone that has studied a lot of the medieval period could tell you that for nearly four hundred years it was warmer than it is now.
So, politics. Yeah, and diplomacy. Its the narrative, facts don’t matter that much.
Then we have SFF. Those that live by narrative, wind up doubling down when they’re caught in a lie or other no-no. The narrative will blow away the truth….{except when it doesn’t}
There’s always been a lot of delusion. Always been a narrative without much in the way of fact. Take one that the liberal press has banged around for forty years, “The US lost the war militarily in Vietnam”. No, actually we didn’t. We lost it on the home front, politically. You can’t win every major battle and lose the war militarily. {Well, I suppose its possible, but I haven’t got a clue how}.
Very well done. Keep it up!
I agree on all counts.
But you seem to be misusing “flaunt” as a synonym for “flout”, which is its near-opposite.
Oops! Fixed. Thanks!
The whole shenanigans reminds me of the philosophy cartoon that goes like this:
“If P is false, I will be sad.
I do not wish to be sad.
Therefore, P is true.”
Reality is based not on facts, but on desires. The left have an insatiable desire to conform the world to their theories. Anything that doesn’t conform to the theory is rejected. Leftism is unscientific and diametrically opposed to the truths of the Enlightenment.
I think that there is an extent to which reality can be created by asserting that something is true. For example, the particular mythos of America with “freedom and justice for all”, doesn’t meet perfect reality, but behaving as if it *does* actually creates greater freedom and justice *for all*. It does so by giving us a template to compare events and say “this doesn’t fit, it’s not right.”
This would probably also work very well on racism. Assert that everyone is equal, even if they aren’t particularly, and they’ll become more so because of the template in our minds that says “this is true, so this other things doesn’t fit and needs to be fixed.” Behave as if racism is over and it is… because everyone is behaving among themselves without racism.
If narrative wasn’t powerful, it couldn’t do so much harm. The worst thing, I think, about that thing we all complain about so much is that the *narrative* is a lie… but it creates itself. Women in science fiction, for example. Given a choice to support a narrative that women are excluded from an old white man’s club… the choice is to erase those women in history who don’t fit. The narrative influences what people do now because it lies about the past. Take that Gawker thing no one bothered to fisk (because it was that dumb). The female author *erased* Teresa Nielson Hayden from the face of the Earth. Yes, I gather she’s not an *editor* presently, but she is associated very closely with Tor and the author of the article mentioned male novelists who also aren’t employees of Tor. But she didn’t mention TNH. But the author had a narrative to follow which was that the male critics of Sad Puppies were given leeway while the only female critic was treated harshly and thrown under the bus… because sexism.
People who believe the narrative of sexism and racism are not *empowered*. They are warned away. At what point is this not actively harmful?
There’s always a percentage of people that prefer a comfortable narrative to an uncomfortable truth; our modern communications infrastructure allows them to connect with one another far easier than ever before. They can also insulate themselves far easier (forum moderation, hugboxes and echo chambers) and create positive feedback loops.
And one need only remember the Tacoma Narrows Bridge to see the result of undamped positive feedback.
Awesome and highly relevant post by Fr. Robert Barron on Dietrich von Hildebrand, a German philosopher who spoke out against moral relativism and the Nazis: http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/dietrich-von-hildebrand-and-our-relativistic-age/4577/
“[I]f he is to be consistent, the relativist must hold that the claim of universal relativism is itself relative and hence not binding on anyone beside himself.”
Spot on, Brad. They can’t have anyone challenge their narrative. They can’t stand to be challenged on anything.
I read some of the narratives going on – and yes, there’s been some narrativing on the SP side, if you’ll excuse me for mangling the Queen’s English – and all I can think of is Shelley’s “Ozymandias”:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Narrative can indeed be a mighty work, but narrative bereft of facts decays into sand.
Gah. That should read “there’s been some narrativing on the SP side as well – did not intend to say it was only on the SP side. From where I sit, the bulk of it has been from the Puppy-kickers… but SPs haven’t been Simon-pure, if we’re honest.
Sooner or later, your stories have to be supportable. There has to be independently verifiable proof. The kind of thing someone not for you, and not against you, can pick up and look at and say, “Yes, okay, I think this verifies what you’re talking about.”
This is a great quote to bring into the Hugo discussion, but in my mind it doesn’t do what you hope it does. You have been capitalising on the victim points produced by a misguided EW article for months quite gracefully, but what about your own narrative, the one that started all of this?
Nodody has been able to take the Mamatas Challenge presented in File770, demonstrating that there actually is a string of “message fiction” Hugo winners going back ten or twenty years. Larry Correia couldn’t back his argument with any concrete examples when GRRM asked for evidence. Eric Flint has taken down a lot of your own arguments with careful scrutiny.
The Puppy movement has provided us with vague metaphors of Nuggy Nuggets and unspecific, sweeping generalisations, with very little hard facts. Now that we’re discussing narratives, I have to say I don’t feel that yours is doing so well, either.
Oh, Brad. Brad. If you’ll forgive me for taking liberties, you’re so out of touch. Haven’t you read your Gillihan?
Reality is a tool of the patriarchy.
I suppose reasoned arguments, using verifiable evidence are a racist neo-nazi plot, or Eric Flint would have used them instead of “scrutiny” to undermine the sad puppy campaign supporters complaints about the status quo.
Take a second, if you don’t mind, and define “narrative.” What do you think the term means? If I tell you that my dog has cancer, or that climate variations are primarily a function of solar activity, or that drinking Mountain Dew causes memory impairment, are these “narratives”? If so, why? If not, why not, and how does it affect Mr. Torgerson’s claims about the status of the Hugo Awards?
Once you stop tossing words around as if they were magic spells, adrift from any anchor to a shared and agreed-upon meaning, you might find takers for your challenge. Until then, it would be a pointless exercise in goal-post moving and applied Bulverism.
“J. R. Tomlin @JRTomlinAuthor 3h3 hours ago @CoraBuhlert @KateElliottSFF That baffles. In no way is Scalzi a left winger. Not even close.”
“Kate Elliott @KateElliottSFF 3h3 hours ago @jrtomlinauthor @corabuhlert He doesn’t call himself one because, you know, he lives in the real world.”
“Cora Buhlert @CoraBuhlert 3h3 hours ago @JRTomlinAuthor @KateElliottSFF Neither is Charles Stross. Or some of the others they love to hate.”
In this narrative, simply because they wish it, John Scalzi, a man whose views on race and gender are indistinguishable from radical gay feminist Audre Lorde, is considered a centrist. Lorde’s views were so far to the Left she was more of a fringe lunatic than anything else. On the other hand the term “radical chic” was invented for the “useful idiot” half of SJWs who are slumming in the “oppressions” of others from their all white communities where they write redneckian SFF which is conformist and derivative.
*
“Cora Buhlert @CoraBuhlert 5h5 hours ago @KateElliottSFF Getting pulled into a US-specific culture war has made everybody even more annoyed.”
“Kate Elliott @KateElliottSFF 5h5 hours ago @corabuhlert Understandably annoyed. The incredible lack of seeing an actual world is so very apparent on the part of some.”
“Cora Buhlert @CoraBuhlert 3h3 hours ago @KateElliottSFF Not just apparent, but glaringly obvious.”
“Kate Elliott @KateElliottSFF 3h3 hours ago @corabuhlert The lack of seeing the world outside one narrow perimeter is both boggling to me, and also sadly predictable.”
“Cora Buhlert @CoraBuhlert 3h3 hours ago @KateElliottSFF It’s also depressing, since we know that many of the puppies have left the US and even lived outside the US.”
“J. R. Tomlin @JRTomlinAuthor 3h3 hours ago @CoraBuhlert @KateElliottSFF Well Torgerson may have been outside the US at some point but he has a very Utah outlook & VD is just a nutcase”
“J. R. Tomlin @JRTomlinAuthor 4h4 hours ago @CoraBuhlert @KateElliottSFF I’m pretty sure tht Brad thought he’d be a big name & is seriously angry at not being.”
“Cora Buhlert @CoraBuhlert 4h4 hours ago @JRTomlinAuthor @KateElliottSFF Of course, now he’ll always be ‘that guy’. Ditto for Correia.”
“J. R. Tomlin @JRTomlinAuthor 4h4 hours ago @KateElliottSFF @corabuhlert Eric Flint pointed that out. Of course they hate him because he really is left wing lol”
Here they’ve created a narrative for themselves where they’re world weary aesthetes. They can mindread anti-gay, anti-PoC and anti-women quotes that don’t exist they treat as footnotes while ignoring the massive amount of their own obsessively bigoted quotes about men and whites. It’s like watching aliens in orbit bet quatloos on how long it will take for the Earth to destroy itself, or 5 yr. olds discussing politics. Forget white privilege, how do you measure the gap between arrogance and ignorance? Nothing is “glaringly obvious” to people who pride themselves on their anti-bigotry yet routinely talk in racist Orwellian sentences which contradict themselves before they reach the period.
“‘lazy’ is such a code word for white people to use to denigrate & dismiss.”- Kate Elliott.
Let me translate that into normalspeak: “Polacks are such racists.”
If you can’t understand the Nutty Nuggets metaphor as vague, then I don’t expect you to understand metaphor at all…
‘demonstrate message fiction Hugo winners’? Easy, just print a list of the freakin things. anyone who doesn’t see and realize what portion of recent Hugo (and Nebula) have been message-focused fiction are either a: in denial, b: so invested in one narrative or another that they don;t realize that it is message fiction, or c: really hoping that the ‘people don’t read anymore’ narrative is true because otherwise it means people aren’t buying their message fic.
Reblogged this on Glass Planet.
@OGHobbit – Logic is the weapon of the patriarchy =3
Biology is not racist or sexist: It kills everyone equally!
Brad,
Can you tell us if you intend responding to GRRM’s reply to you on his blog? I think he makes a number of salient points which cut to the heart of this depressing kerfluffle. Points that I personally would be very interested to see your reply to include:
“No one on “my side” ever threatened anyone’s livelihood or career. Your side is doing just that. In public.”
“And while the Hugo nomination process is indeed democratic, your slate-making was not. The facts refute that. You called for suggestions, but you did not slate the works that got the most. You picked the Sad Puppy slate yourself, including some that no one recommended. And VD, of course, picked all the Rabid choices by himself. Neither process was remotely democratic.”
“CHORF and Puppy-kicker don’t “seem offensive to some,” they ARE offensive, and deliberately so. That’s why you guys made them up, to offend and insult, not to “refine the conversation.” ”
“A writer of my acquaintance, older and wiser than myself, has told me that this is worst fight he has ever seen, the nastiest and most divisive war in the long history of our field. Worse than the Exclusion Act. Worse than the Cosmic Circle crap. Worse than the Breendoggle, than the Old Wave/ New Wave struggle, than the competing Vietnam War ads. The wounds will take a long time healing… if indeed they ever heal.
And in large part you are responsible for that, Brad.”
Aaaaaaaaaand there we have the same strawmen talking points again. “You didn’t do it perfectly, to our unspoken standards and desires, therefore, BAD~~~~!!!!”
Ah ASPs (anti-Sad-Puppies). The fact that they hold this as worse as child molesting Breen kind of exposes what they hold as important. And they’re wondering why we don’t agree.
George Orwell writes in a 1944 letter about “a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted.”
If one replaces “fuhrer” with a thing like intersectionalism, it seems to fit. Intersectionalism is not only an ideology built on false narratives but on sociopathic and pathological ones of race and sex-hatred. Anything becomes anything in that world; whites become black, men become women, global history becomes one enormous Jim Crow narrative of whites vs PoC. and also of oppressed women. Anything which goes against the narrative, such as non-white colonialism or slavery, is sent into Orwell’s memory-hole. Reality is fluid in such a way the real world disappears while intersectionists claim they speak “truth to power” and expose hyper-reality.
When the white Rachel Dolezal passing as black states the larger white community “don’t really understand the definitions of race and ethnicity” it’s pretty clear that is not only privilege theory but one where there are no definitions of anything. Reality becomes not only what you point to at the time but based on race and gender so that a stacked deck prevents one race or gender of ever being correct or moral. In short, Dolezal made herself correct and moral – and a victim – in a way that should provide fodder for an SF story.
The fact Dolezal is white is just one example of the many hair-raising stupidities and self-contradictions built into intersectionalist lunacy. Were these oppressions real, one wouldn’t essentially voluntarily transition into a Jew in Nazi Germany. Dolezal is slumming, the way all middle class SJWs slum, especially those SFF authors who have to remind us they’re “Arab” or “PoC” because they don’t look anything like Arabs or PoC. The same is true for the many so-called “bi-sexual” feminists in SFF who are by an amazing coincidence married to men. When people claim intersectionalists create their own victimhood, they are right on the money. What black person would live in a white supremacy rather than moving to Africa? Look at all the non-whites who leave dictatorships to come to America. What black 4 time Nebula nominee would claim a career “strangled at birth” by whites? Con game.
One could easily argue the mainstreaming of hate speech and lunacy has not only literally driven an otherwise normal Dolezal mad, but apply it to otherwise sane flak catchers in the SFF community. Not only am I not surprised Rachael Dolezal pretended to be black, anti-radical feminists have sarcastically predicted such behaviors as “transblack.”
When anything is anything, an intersectionalist like Mikki Kendall can transform a dead-on accurate replica of a “1911A1 .45 automatic” into “toys” so a 12 yr. old child shot by the police can be death by racism. Pointing out that fact to Kendall can be transformed into “worthless racist bullshit.” Anything is anything in intersectionalism as long as it’s a straight white male taking the heat. Racism is “anti-racism,” and facts are “racist,” but only some facts.
The response to Dolezal by the feminist intersectionalist community undermined all the nonsensical arguments they’ve been selling and anti-radical feminists picked up on that right away. If there is no such thing as a typical woman – a typical female brain – there is no such thing as a woman – a lesbian no less – trapped in a man’s body. If Dolezal is not black, transgender are not “women,” no more so than they become a microwave oven by installing working parts and a door in their stomach. In essence all these intersectionalists against Dolezal have become “transphobes,” a thing they routinely accuse others of.
Emblematic of this is an article at The Guardian called “I became a black woman in Spokane. But, Rachel Dolezal, I was a black girl first.” It’s written by a women named Alicia Walters who claims in her profile she “was born, raised, and survived as a black girl in Spokane, WA,” as if it was the Warsaw Ghetto. In a passage which destroys transgender thought, Walters writes “If blackness can simply be worn or performed, then every white woman with a weave and a cause, every white girl with a snap and a little attitude, can supplant the lived experiences of what it is to become a black woman.” She only adds to her own hypocrisy by mentioning “… black identity cannot be put on like a pair of shoes” but later writing as a teenager “…I wore bright, creative clothing; I embraced my love of dance, of song, of sports.” The reason you see that hypocrisy echoed throughout intersectionalism is because such people simply gauge their own identity as always right and moral, which of course means you never have to think; race-sex stereotypes replace thought and a moral ethos. Intersectional gender feminism routinely falls into its own tiger traps for the simple reason it is an ideology built on unreality and false narratives, if not madness.
Oh, and GOOD JOB, ASPs, pushing the idiocy further. Breendoggle, for those who are uninformed, is about how Walter H. Breen, husband of Marion Zimmer Bradley molested children.
Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are WORSE than that?! And the ASPs wonder why we think they’re insane?
Shadowdancer, do you realise that you are responding to quotes from George R R Martin in a reply to Brad? Feel free to head over to his blog and explain to him that his response to Brad was just “strawmen talking points”, and tell him how you’ve parsed his comment about various fan wars.
Well, to be exact, what some oldtimer said is that the discussion in fandom has been nastier and more hurtful during Hugogeddon2015 than ever before. What he didn’t say is that Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are worse than a child molester.
But do go on being upset about things nobody has said if that is what you wish to do. That has been the tactic of many people in this mess and it has kept them successfully upset. 😀
It would be interesting to hear Brad’s responses to things that GRRM actually brough up.
Why? you don’t want to go over to Vox Day’s blog. Why should I go over to GRRM’s LJ and respond to his quote that Breendoggle is worse than ‘this war’, which Brad is responsible for.
The only thing Brad is ‘responsible for’ is Sad Puppies.
What’s Breendoggle about?
Then feel free to keep critiquing GRRM far far away from where he might see it.
Meanwhile, I await Brad’s response to GRRM with interest.
You have a point (try wearing a hat to cover it) He said the FIGHT over Breen wasn’t as nasty as the SP fight. I can see that. But it just means that people are more worked up over some trophy than a child molester being welcomed and protected by the fandom, and that’s STILL some twisted morality.
I have faith that you’ll carry it back gleefully to your side to mock and make fun of. It’ll reach him eventually. *shrug*
That’s what I meant, Dr. Mauser. They consider the SP fight worse than the Breen fight. With the comparative lack of reaction regards Breen, and the reaction against Sad Puppies, we’re ‘worse than child molesters’ given the sheer amount of outrage from the establishment.
*shakes head* Why are we surprised any more?
c4c
“First it was SJWs. Then CHORFs. The latest is ‘Puppy-kickers.'” – GRRM
“I have spoken out against name-calling from the first, Brad. It is the Puppies and their supporters who started it, and who keep dialing it up. I will concede that you yourself have been mostly civil, but read the comments in your own blog, or Correia’s, or even on FILE 770, and it is all venom and epithets.” – GRRM
No, Mark and George. First it was Pearl Harbor and the defensive Battle of Midway and THEN the invasion of Okinawa. First it was “white privilege,” “mansplaining,” “white tears,” “whiteness,” “male gaze,” “rape culture,” “white saviors,” “old white men,” “white dude parade,” #JustListen to rape hoaxes, and “cis-males.” So go get a dictionary with the words “offense” and “defense” and “first” and “after.” Get yourself a timeline of events and then the quotes to go with it, and let’s not have “SFF has always been straight white male.” Last I checked, “demographic” is not a synonym for “KKK.”
And let’s get another thing straight: there is a vast difference between “SJW” and racial and sexual defamation. “CHORF” is not on the level of “cracka ass cracka” or “white cis dude.” Saying an individual is a “fuck” is not on the level of saying black women have the brains of water buffaloes, and to wide support from SJWs no less.
“No one on ‘my side’ ever threatened anyone’s livelihood or career. Your side is doing just that. In public.” – GRRM
That is playing fast and loose with facts and semantics about “livelihood” and “career.” The hounding of people and their expulsions precedes Sad Puppies. We are responding with return fire based on precedents set by SJWs themselves. Vox Day is expelled ergo so too must be Aliette de Bodard, Saladin Ahmed and N. K. Jemisin. Having that both ways has produced this war.
Exactly what does The Guardian mean by “other experiences than the white male’s,” or Xojane by “I Challenge You to Stop Reading White, Straight, Cis Male Authors for One Year,” or Monica Byrne (supported by double Hugo-winner Kameron Hurley) by “the white male colonial gaze”? What in the hell do you think they are voting for: literature?
No less than 6 blogs used “old white men” as the charge against Resnick/Malzberg when they were dragged in front of an inquisition of almost 80 blog posts over nothing. Jean Rabe didn’t do anything to anybody. Jonathan Ross was accused of pre-crime in the finest traditions of Phillip K. Dick. How many careers have been threatened in a cult of permanent affirmative action status?
“Farah Mendlesohn @effjayem Mar 5 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.”
“Abigail Nussbaum @NussbaumAbigail Mar 9 @shaunduke @niallharrison @jdiddyesquire I need a manifesto for it to be clear that I want women, PoCs and progressive themes on the ballot?”
“I anticipate that this groundswell of efforts to boost the voices of the marginalized will continue and I have every intent to help promote those efforts wherever I can.” – SFF author Laura Mixon, then wife of SFWA president Steven Gould
What do I get for that, George? Out of context, cherry-picking, so what? How many quotes do you need? 30, 100? Are facts ever facts, quotes ever a reflection of anything? Considering Damien Walter at The Guardian, Kameron Hurley at The Atlantic and Entertainment Weekly all saying we oppose the entry of non-whites, women and gays but using no quotes, what the hell’s the standard here?
Does purposefully not reviewing white men threaten careers? We weren’t doing anything of the kind and were accused of “marginalizing” careers according to race and sex. But who is marginalizing who when I have hundreds of quotes recommending fiction according to race and sex from one side vs. zero quotes like that on the other?
I don’t ID GRRM as an SJW, not even a useful idiot really. He’s just a busy guy who’s uninformed. I presume the same is true of Eric Flint.
“You have presumably read the comments James May is putting up… well, everywhere.” – GRRM
3 or 4 places isn’t “everywhere,” George, and my comments are based on facts, logic, reason and quotes that are superior to your own. That is not because I am smarter but because of homework. When it comes to this issue, I would win a debate with you or anyone else in the SFF community. Surprisingly, they are deleted or banned. The fact you never use the word “feminist” tells me everything I need to know. If you’re referring to my insults, I don’t need to be polite to intersectionalists or anyone who supports them any more than a Jew or black person does to a white supremacist.
“A writer of my acquaintance, older and wiser than myself, has told me that this is worst fight he has ever seen, the nastiest and most divisive war in the long history of our field. Worse than the Exclusion Act. Worse than the Cosmic Circle crap. Worse than the Breendoggle, than the Old Wave/ New Wave struggle, than the competing Vietnam War ads. The wounds will take a long time healing… if indeed they ever heal.
“And in large part you are responsible for that, Brad.”
Wrong. It is the entry of the racial and sexual defamatory cult of radical intersectional gender feminism that is responsible. Why wouldn’t sheer race and sex-hatred produce the worst feud in SFF history? You and Eric Flint not knowing that doesn’t equal it not being there.
I have no animosity towards GRRM. He has produced the finest American epic fantasy ever written since that form started here in the ’70s. I thank Eric Flint for the set of James H. Schmitz books from Baen, all of which I own. I positively dote on Schmitz. But facts are facts and wrong is wrong and “so what” is not debate.
I’m not having my comments deleted at deletety-place so this’ll do just fine, Mark.
@ Mark
Why on earth should somebody on deployment jump to the tune of every libprog that can’t answer their own questions? If GRRM wants to have answers to his questions, have him come here. The answers won’t disappear in moderation that way.
There’s some real entitlement issues here where libprog spokespersons think that moderates should jump to their tune. Let GRRM come here and ask his questions. Respect goes both ways, you want to be treated with respect, treat others with respect. Disrespect others, expect that in return.
@ kitten
By now everyone knows that Mamatas is, shall we say, just a tad biased. Why play his game at File 770? Since Dave Freer already has run numbers on this, it would be better if Mamatas manned up, went to MGC and discussed it with Dave.
Shadowdancer Duskstar / Cutelildrow says:
That’s what I meant, Dr. Mauser. They consider the SP fight worse than the Breen fight. With the comparative lack of reaction regards Breen, and the reaction against Sad Puppies, we’re ‘worse than child molesters’ given the sheer amount of outrage from the establishment.
Fair enough, even though I would like to point out that one fight being nastier than another (in someone’s opinion) doesn’t say anything about whether they actually consider Brad nastier than Breen. I hope nobody does.
Getting stuck with this rather small detail in the lengthy response is taking the attention away from GRRM’s main points, though.
Our “anti-racists” are selling us ludicrous bullshit. Their definition of contemporary American racism is always one of majority/minority arithmetic rather than race-hatred, which is what racism truly starts out as.
Cortes marched into the heart of the Mexican empire with 400 men and seized the emperor. Were they “anti-racist”?
Statistical zero ruled colonial India 1860-1947. No racism? What about South Africa a few decades ago? When a guy merely mentioned the Islamic conquest of Spain Philip Sandifer called him an “Islamophobic fuckhead.” What lunatic standard of bigotry is in play there?
Were the Nazis not racist until they came to power?
Are today’s “marginalized” American KKK and neo-Nazis not racists?
And if I don’t buy into this convenient lunacy I’m a racist myself? Con games have no rules. The con is the rule. SFF’s precious “marginalized” are routinely racist. They are institutionally supported in SFF. End of story. I don’t give a shit how much they lie about privilege theory and “punching up” and minority status to provide cover for their bigotry.
Angus Trim says:
By now everyone knows that Mamatas is, shall we say, just a tad biased. Why play his game at File 770? Since Dave Freer already has run numbers on this, it would be better if Mamatas manned up, went to MGC and discussed it with Dave.
Well, I haven’t said that Mamatas has to accept the Puppies’ answers. Whatever his biases are, he has posed a set of questions that nobody at all has even tried to answer conclusively. If somebody did, everybody could assess whether they feel that the answers really hold water or not.
Dave Freer’s analysis left something to be desired and it was deconstructed at lenght here, for example.
I haven’t been over to George’s LiveJournal to check for a response. If George is really saying Sad Puppies is worse than child-molestation . . . well, maybe I will go over and see what George actually said, versus what people say he said. That too is a problem with narrative: the telephone game, wherein words get changed, inflated, and altered to mean something other than what the original message intended. Tricksy, I tell you!
Also, should I note that a post that only very tangentially touches on SP, has been comments-derailed into a discussion about SP?
Another aspect of narrative: when you’re married to the narrative, that’s all you can talk about. It occupies the whole of your attention, and all other topics of conversation are merely springboards back to talking about the narrative. Ergo. one-note players, one-trick ponies, etc.
Technically, GRRM is quoting someone else who describes that the Sad Puppies Hugo 2015 is worse than Breendoggle. Then George supposedly lays the blame on Brad’s door.
Since Mark did not link to allow us to check versus wading through the blog, Mark is partially responsible for delivering those words to us without us being able to check if true. Yet at the same time, we’re expected to provide proof at whim and demand, of every single niggardly detail they wish to examine and dismiss.
Brad, GRRM’s comments was in response to the post you made at his (Not a) blog. The thread is here:
http://grrm.livejournal.com/429752.html?thread=21780152#t21780152
Set aside some time – it’s quite lengthy. Like Eric Flint, GRRM certainly seems to have much to say!
Also, should I note that a post that only very tangentially touches on SP, has been comments-derailed into a discussion about SP?
Unfortunately Brad, SP3 is what you’re most known for at the moment. Given that it did touch upon the incidents of the past week, it’s predictable that far more people would be interested in the section where you talk about how your point relates to the Hugo Awards.
I too am amused at the insistence of SP detractors that post here and require that BT reply to GRRM on his LJ account (…and who the heck is still using LJ as a primary platform? 2006 called and it wants its social medial site back;-) ) – if GRRM wants to talk to BT (or vice versa), why not do it here, or in a direct email so that the conversation isn’t an ever escalating blood sport where the players on opposing teams can score differently, using different rules and for different supporters?
Or you know – pick up the phone and HAVE AN ACTUAL CONVERSATION? (side note and to mine own point, if you are Libertycon in a cpl weeks, I will look you up and introduce myself – I am one of your many fans).
Brad, now that you replied over on his blog, predictably he gets to semi fisk your reply and has the benefit (as it goes in these internet blog squabbles) of the last word. You can’t win there, for values of the word win, when the communications mechanism is a blog post on a forum controlled by your rhetorical opponent and the comments (the fans in the stands) are stacked against ANYTHING that you say. I thought that you were past trying to tilt against that particular windmill.
“Also, should I note that a post that only very tangentially touches on SP, has been comments-derailed into a discussion about SP?”. Yep – agreed.
Oh, and for a bit of schadenfrude, I am enjoying GRRM’s frantic hand waving that he had nothing to do with the ongoing kerfluffle of his frankenbaby GoT. The SJWs are increasingly demanding his creation’s scalp and he is none too pleased. “Bu-bu-buh I am one of YOU! How can you turn on me like this!”.
‘Vox is a stalker’ smells like Clamps. Can we can a mod to check that out and do the required excision, if so?
Since he makes reference to stuff that happened regarding the investigation of Yama, I’d say it is. Screenshotting =D Hold off on the banbutton, Brad, please.
Anybody who uses the “Vox is a stalker” as a handle should be IMO ignored. I get these posts via email and skipped those posts.
“Meanwhile, other wars are breaking out on other fronts, centered around the last few episodes of GAME OF THRONES. It is not my intention to get involved in those…” – GRRM
There is no irony in Mudville. I can say the “F-word,” George – “feminism.”
So it is my intention to get involved in “those.” A lot of others feel the same way. Ignoring a thing doesn’t mean I have to or that it doesn’t exist. The truth is that George acts as if we should ignore feminists the same way he does and seems to consider that the gold standard for behavior.
*
“Truth be told, it is making sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people that often causes problems.
“If Anne Coulter says something ignorant or objectionable, then take issue with Anne Coulter. By name. The same with anyone on the other side of the argument… any argument…” – GRRM talking about the term “SJW.”
That’s exactly what I do – name names. And we’re fighting racial and sexual negative generalizations, George. Other than “straight white male,” SJWs are notoriously short on naming names. What they do is take John C. Wright and Vox Day and multiply them into an army. Just leave the driving to us.
“What’s not legit is to make up YOUR own insulting name for your opponents and insist on using it, even when they object. ‘SJWs. CHORFs. Puppy-kickers.’ That’s just discourteous.” – GRRM
Not as bad as “cis white dude” endlessly attached to all immorality that ever existed. In essence SJWs created the basis of the term “SJW.” Racial defamation is not “social justice.”
*
“I am sorry, but I have seen way more invective coming from the Puppies than from the fans.” – GRRM
Whose talking about fans, George? We’re talking about lit-org presidents, serial convention panelists, editors, entire webzines, best-selling and award-nominated authors, and influential bloggers and podcasters.
*
“… how about deleting some of the uglier posts from your blog.” – GRRM
We call that “disagreement,” “facts” and “debate.” The deletions are what started this.
*
I haven’t seen Martin say anything like we’re worse than child-molesters. I don’t think anyone’s saying that, really. It seems more like an inference not in evidence.
“Oh, and for a bit of schadenfrude, I am enjoying GRRM’s frantic hand waving that he had nothing to do with the ongoing kerfluffle of his frankenbaby GoT. The SJWs are increasingly demanding his creation’s scalp and he is none too pleased. ‘Bu-bu-buh I am one of YOU! How can you turn on me like this!’.”
Exactly, mykewrytr
We’re supposedly kooks for predicting months if not years ago exactly what happened to GRRM via the far kookier feminist critiques of how Sansa Stark was handled while dead men fall into a crack in the feminist earth and are ignored. Flay them as you like, female supremacists don’t care.
Of course premier intersectionalist Saladin Ahmed asking if Game of Thrones is too white at Salon a couple of years ago should’ve been a wake up call Ahmed’s piece was no random act but one of the earlier broadsides from the anti-male anti-white feminist cult of intersectionality.
I’ve said this many times: many liberals are straight white males and eventually they will come for you. This is not liberals vs. conservatives. This is a diversified KKK, and they don’t care about your politics. Look how many of them have gone after Eric Flint and Martin. You’re either with the gal-cult or you’re not.
Well, actually Mr. Martin, we didn’t invent the term “SJW”, it’s much older than Puppies*. But I guess I can’t expect a man of your advanced years to be hip to the lingo of the youth.
(*Please don’t try and explain that to him. He’ll spend a month blogging about it, patting us condescendingly on the head and explaining we don’t know anything because we haven’t been in fandom for 50 years)
I left two responses for George. And no, I don’t expect to win over there. We’ll see if he unscreens, and then we’ll also see how he responds to my three yes-or-no questions — regarding his insistence that everyone upset with Gallo (and e-mailing Macmillan) is a robot of Vox Day’s devising. Speaking of which, all you human beings who still think TOR needs to take more action to clean up internally, Peter Grant‘s put out a call to action.
Snowcrash: funny, I thought I was best known for being a science fiction writer. Oh wait, I forgot, narrative, narrative, narrative.
Also I see that File 770 once again failed to link to Peter Grant’s Tor insider posts, but at least they linked to Sarah linking to them. These posts concern the Gallo situation, so they have direct relevance to the current situation.
And speaking of robots, I found this hilarious gem at the 770 Club:
“Lois Tilton on June 15, 2015 at 6:06 am said:
Vox Day, Peter Grant, et al, claim righteously that they are not bots, that they deployed no bot armies to assault Tor. OK. But they can not say there are no bots. It takes a single hacker to raise and deploy a force of bots, and this hypothetical hacker may not have been at the command of or either in communication with VD or any of the principals in Puppy Command.
It’s a wellknown principle of fantasy that when you raise the demons, they escape your control.”
The narrative must survive!
@Shadowdancer – if you read that carefully you will see that GRRM’s friend is saying that the furore over Puppygate is worse than any previous “fan fight”. I’d have to agree with that. Nothing to do with what the previous fights were *about*.
@Brad: funny, I thought I was best known for being a science fiction writer.
I think that was true right up to the time the Hugo nominations were announced, which is why I said that SP3 is what you’re most known for at the moment. . I know we’re all invested in our own narratives, but I think we can at least try to approach each other with some level of good faith.
I think you’ve linked to the wrong Peter Grant post, BTW, but I hope I’m wrong.
“Vox is a Stalker” is not clamps, he has been posting at Vox’s blog as ‘Obvious’. The first quote is completely out of context, shockingly.
I highly doubt they would post it at this stage, honestly, Chris. It is inconvenient to their narrative, but they’re happy to seize on the unproven claim that we’re bots quite readily. Oh the double standards! And yet, we’re supposed to believe they mean well!
Realize that we’re not the ones who made it as big as this, yet it’s ‘Brad’s fault’ for… SP3. We’re not the ones who decided to decry their own product as being ‘reprihensible.’ If Teresa Nielsen Hayden hadn’t thrown her tantrum a week before the nominations were announced, if none of them started casting about who to blame, if they didn’t cast around to find out if authors agreed to be included…and so on…
SP3 might not have become the big thing it is now.
GRRM himself is laying the blame at Brad’s and Sad Puppies’ door for this ‘furore’, which is a ‘bigger fan fight’ than a fan fight about a pedophile. Since we’ve been repeatedly taken to task that it doesn’t matter in the least what we intended, the results is what matter, we are told. They STILL state as unquestionable ‘truth’, that Brad uses his wife and child as ‘shields’ against his accused racism. Snowcrash himself openly admits that he isn’t here in good faith at all.
By that metric, the inference that Sad Puppies is worse than Breendoggle is just as fair for us to make, especially with the phrasing used.
Yet, when it comes to Irene Gallo, GRRM, and the numerous other people who have said a large amount of truly insulting things about us, we’re supposed to hang on, wait a sec, you’re misinterpreting that, surely he/she meant… you Puppies shouldn’t be thinking so badly!
Considering that one of the latest beliefs about our side is that we supposedly engage in criminal activity and cyberharassment (The use of bots to mass-contact Tor as a ‘means to inflate our numbers’ in protest) the thought that we would be worse than child molesters according to the ASPs no longer would surprise us. They continuously assert that we are in ‘fact’ neo-nazis, misogynists, racists, homophobic, oh and terrorists even with proof contrary to that. They have already proven, entirely, that because we are not ideologically pure to their standards, it is ‘fine’ to slander us, cast doubts on what we intend, accuse us of cheating, accuse us of lies, accuse us of every single bad thing they can lay their hands on…
and somehow, we’re supposed to be nicer, more calm, more rational, than the ASPs and CHORFs, to ‘prove’ we’re better?
File 770 has someone in their comments advising them on how to ‘prevent’ being ‘doxxed’, using the same method by which he bypasses Brad Torgersen’s repeated bans. He’s over there as Alauda. Yet we’re the ones with ‘bots.’
Right.
Perhaps next time you write one of these posts explaining what is wrong with the ‘other side’, you could stop for a moment before hitting Publish. And ask yourself – any of these things I accuse other people of doing, have I done these things myself?
“It doesn’t matter how fervently you believe the narrative, nor how effectively you proselytize the narrative to others, if your narrative doesn’t have facts at the base of it, your narrative will crumble”
So, what are the facts about the SJW takeover of the Hugos that your narrative is based on? How was this takeover accomplished? Were votes manipulated? Was the system gamed? You are not happy with the results, but if the _process_ was fixed, show us how.
And the democratic and open selection of Sad Puppies 3? How exactly were the slate members selected? How did this process exemplify openness and democracy? Why is a slate democratic?
These are simple, factual questions, that I’m sure you are capable of answering with simple, provable facts, rather than appealing to an unverifiable narrative of persecution
@Quizzer – Got a link, please? If he hasn’t been nuked already.
Ray,
The answers to those questions have been posted on this blog and many others since the beginning of this year.
Quit being lazy and go do some damned research. If you can’t be bothered to do that, then the answers to your questions don’t matter, because all your interested in is the narritive you beleive in, and you don’t want that shattered.
Thanks Andrew. I was restraining myself at Snowcrash 2.0 there.
*lightbulb*
…Dude. They behave more like bots than we could ever hope to try emulate! Ignore inconvenient answers. Have the same talking spiels. Demand we make like a search engine and fetch. And so on. If— Then / if not —then
It’s like a series of flowcharted responses!
We all suspected there were problems with Hugo, because the winners didn’t meet the “best of SF/F” billing. Larry C. distilled the issues for us but you’ve done the most to lay the ground to solve them. SP3 is not the end of the battle against CHORFs, it’s not even the beginning of the end; but it is, I think, the end of the beginning. Thank you, Brad, for your SP3 leadership and God Speed as you deploy.
I always love how someone quotes a non-existent source when attacking someone else. It means they totally made it up, because they don’t want to be seen as making the attack themselves.
Not falling for it George.
As for George, well, old die hard communists never give up the fight, and yes, of course George doesn’t see the other side, the man is a hard core Marxist, all of that stuff is just invisible to him. It is only when his ‘side’ is threatened that he now suddenly has the time to ‘pay attention’ and of course we all get blamed for ‘taking him away’ from his writing.
I must laugh as well at the many double standards George supports. Yes I understand how he feels you must delete everything that you don’t agree with (which is what he does) and if you don’t delete it, it can -only- be because you support it. That is a very old standard of communists everywhere, they do it to comments, they do it to people, they even do it to history. They -especially- do it to history.
Andrew, I have looked and haven’t found factual, verifiable answers to those questions. Perhaps you know the answers?
What was the selection process for the Puppies?
Was there one vote for every comment that nominated an item? One vote for every email nominating something? Is there a record somewhere posting the results of this voting? (The Hugos post a detailed record of voting, surely the Puppies can do at least as much?)
Or was it more of a juried selection? Was Brad the only judge? Were there other members of a jury? How were they selected? Are their votes recorded somewhere?
Or maybe there _is_ a post where all of this is explained that you could point me to? The Hugos post their nomination and voting rules in advance, was something like that done for the Puppies?
And for the Hugos… is the problem that the voting is rigged? That people vote for Brad’s books, and his friends’ books, but the votes are deliberately miscounted so that other people win? Or is it just the wrong people voting? That the Worldcon members don’t like the things Brad likes, and vote for other things? Are the problems the Puppies intend to fix set out clearly and factually anywhere, without any narrative proselytising?
I’m laughing at how SJWs are going over the word “neo-Nazis.” Keep in mind, this is a cult where 4 time Nebula nominee N. K. Jemisin says contemporary America is an “apartheid” and J. Campbell winner Sofia Samatar a “white supremacy.” Their views and the 2 women themselves are enthusiastically supported in the social justice SFF community.
Given SJW’s routine as sun-up comments about SF’s Golden Age, it’s obvious they feel the same about that entire era. SJWs are not talking about literal neo-Nazis, but an analogy to them: a white male heterosexual supremacist norm which reigned and continues to reign supreme, as opposed to a mere demographic whose views are unknown. They’re “known” all right – in scare quote after scare quote, or just no quotes.
Given the thousands of comments in SFF about straight white males in the last two years, it’s evident merely existing puts all straight white males into a racial and sexual supremacy of “privilege” we grant each other via our disdain for women, gays and non-whites. That’s the narrative, and it never ceases, not for one day. I can find someone on Twitter doing that right now. The worst SJWs are obsessed with the idea they are under assault by a supremacy that wants them to go away. Lighting us up by race and sex is what SJWs do, and it’s why we call them that. They do what we don’t and accuse us of doing what they do. They are a wrong-way circus of stupid.
So if we’re all already enrolled in a casual membership in such a thing just by waking up, what happens when we actively push back against that defamation? Irene Gallo happens. The idea her remarks were off the cuff is laughable given Tor’s editors and bloggers, what they blog about, and where they leave comments, such as at Requires Hate’s rabidly anti-white anti-male site.
Here’s the opening words from Kameron Hurley’s June 9 blog post about SFF, aliens, planets and stars:
“I read once that the real cost of racism was in keeping folks affected by same from doing their work. This works for stuff like feminism and homophobia, too. Instead of doing the work we were meant to do, bigots want to keep people spinning in circles…”
That’s not SFF, or reality. That’s a bizarre obsession continually dragged into an inappropriate place. And what’s the title of the post? “It’s Always Been Awful Under the Boot: On the Fatigue of Everyday Horror.” America and SFF as a Lovecraftian horror… right. And nonsensical essays like that is what Gallo was promoting when she made her remarks and that’s what she thought would make us angry. Why would I be angry about F.B. Long’s Hounds of Tindalos sneaking out of the wainscoting and erasing women from military history and applying their puppy-boots to innocent feminist necks? Pity is more like it.
Anybody who thinks this is not the default at WorldCon needs to go watch the video of last year’s awards. It suffused the entire event – this so-called need for “social justice.” You’d have thought they were in Selma in 1962.
Why is that stuff so obsessively sprinkled throughout SFF on a daily basis? Why are people like Eric Flint and GRRM pretending these people don’t exist or that they have no influence? When did this race-gender bullshit become so important? Why are people acting like people aren’t going to act on their actual quotes when it’s self-evident they are? Why are people pretending the institutional orthodoxy embedded into SFF’s core institutions is some outlier when in fact it’s a blanket? Who in the hell do you think a person is voting for awards who thinks Orwell’s manboot is smashing their gender obsessed faces? Maybe the welcome genderblindness and freedom from boots represented by Ancillary Justice? These people write Messianic literature as if they’re Herbert’s Fremen of the slaves in Egypt, and their Messiah is themselves and their edgy progressiveness.
So it’s just a coincidence AJ wins, and Stross’s laugh riot with “complex gender dimorphism” and a “Lady Astronaut” and raining on the goodmenz and Hurley and Dillon’s PoC art and Lightspeed (“no white male authors”) and Dribble of Ink (cuz of Hurley) and Hurley again and Sofia Samatar and it’s all about the SFF ain’t it, folks? You don’t need a slate in an echo chamber. Exactly what in the hell is GRRM defending: the threat of the white Patriarchy?
Realize that we’re not the ones who made it as big as this, yet it’s ‘Brad’s fault’ for… SP3. We’re not the ones who decided to decry their own product as being ‘reprihensible.’ If Teresa Nielsen Hayden hadn’t thrown her tantrum a week before the nominations were announced, if none of them started casting about who to blame, if they didn’t cast around to find out if authors agreed to be included…and so on…
It goes back further than that. The Social Justice activists (as a disorganized block, not an organized group) had the upper hand, as far as the Hugos and mainstream Science Fiction went. Lots of people complained (most vocally, Larry Correia). The Social Justice types could have compromised by making a few changes to soothe the complainers, but they had continued to maintain their lock on power. Then Sad Puppies 3 came along, and the lock on control of the Hugos and mainstream Science Fiction has been broken. At this point, the winner is still undetermined, but if they lose, the Social Justice activist block will have much less power than if they had compromised from the beginning. The Social Justice activists wouldn’t compromise when they were winning, why should anyone compromise with them if they lose? Furthermore, why should anyone reduce their chances of winning to appeal to the promises of mercy of the Social Justice types that have never shown any mercy before?
It works the other way when viewed from the Sad Puppies side. The Sad Puppies were losing. Regardless of what happens with this fight, the outcome can’t be any worse than the situation before Sad Puppies came along. The Sad Puppies have nothing to lose by continuing the fight.
Does purposefully not reviewing white men threaten careers? We weren’t doing anything of the kind and were accused of “marginalizing” careers according to race and sex. But who is marginalizing who when I have hundreds of quotes recommending fiction according to race and sex from one side vs. zero quotes like that on the other?
We are willing to coexist with the Social Justice types as long as they are willing to coexist with us. If you see Science Fiction as a pie of variable size, having both the Social Justice types and the Sad Puppies contributing to Science Fiction makes everyone better. If you believe the Science Fiction pie is fixed in size, then of course the Social Justice types seeing the Sad Puppies get more of the pie is a threat to Social Justice, but it also works the other way, where someone that likes entertaining Science Fiction sees more and more Social Justice message fiction as taking away their options. Either way, the Sad Puppies fight is justifiable from the Sad Puppies POV.
“@Quizzer – Got a link, please? If he hasn’t been nuked already.”
Not handy, its been the last few days. I don’t think his comments will be nuked, they need to remain to keep IP addresses and serve as evidence of stalking.
One more time. THERE WERE NO VOTES. Brad asked for suggestions, read them, and made his recommendations.
Now show me ANY other slate/recommendation/whatever-you-want-to-call-it where you or anyone else has demanded that they hold a freakin’ primary election or it’s not legitimate.
Brad’s open call for recommendations is the most open slate ever.
@Joe – the problem with “best” is that it’s so subjective. I thought that “Ancillary Justice” was the best Space Opera I had read in years and put fresh breath into the genre. Most of the people posting here, I suspect, wouldn’t agree with that. In the same way that I’m not impressed with most of this year’s nominees.
“THERE WERE NO VOTES. Brad asked for suggestions, read them, and made his recommendations.”
So, the open and democratic process was “One Man, One Vote” and Brad was the man?
@Paul Oldroyd: Can I ask you what you liked about Ancillary Justice, other than the schtick of the main character’s pronoun-use default? I’ve tried a couple of times to read the first chapter and always been defeated by it; I would like to know what I’m missing, and if it’s worth fighting my way through the mental translation needed.
Well, to be fair, Vox was the man. Most of the people on the Puppy side that I’ve talked to didn’t nominate in lock-step in the same way that Vox’s tribe did.
No. No. No. For the thousandth time, no. The open process was Brad asked for recommendations, and posted his. The democratic process was people then nominated what they chose. Brad did not cast more than his one vote.
Again, what other slate have you held to this Platonic ideal of openness? Who else has held a freaking primary election to satisfy your impossible standards?
And for the Hugos… is the problem that the voting is rigged? That people vote for Brad’s books, and his friends’ books, but the votes are deliberately miscounted so that other people win? Or is it just the wrong people voting? That the Worldcon members don’t like the things Brad likes, and vote for other things? Are the problems the Puppies intend to fix set out clearly and factually anywhere, without any narrative proselytising?
I know this is a troll, but the response deserves to be posted for the one Science Fiction fan left out there that is clueless about the whole thing.
The Sad Puppies campaign has brought forward a large number of Science Fiction fans that had been left out of the process for recommending the best Science Fiction works. If you think the Sad Puppies are not representative of fandom, why should we not be entitled to claim that the pre-Sad Puppies 3 voters were not representative? Is the proper response to kick them back out of the process, or to bring more people in until fandom as a whole is represented? Keep in mind that the whole Social Justice position is based on the contention that women and minorities were not represented in the process.
Evidence there is a problem is as follows:
There is a clear disconnect between the works that get nominated for the Hugo and popular preferences as told by book sales. If what wins the Hugo (supposedly the best Science Fiction) isn’t what Science Fiction fans are buying, why?
There has been a clear and deliberate campaign to block works that don’t fit the Social Justice worldview from winning the award by block voting ‘No Award’ for these books without even considering them (see Sad Puppies 2).
Works that aren’t even Science Fiction are winning both a Hugo nomination and winning the Nebula for no identifiable reason other than they fit a particular Social Justice worldview, indicating a major political bias in the process for multiple awards.
@Stephen – It’s odd, everyone seems to come back to that pronoun use. It confused me for a while, then I thought it was quite clever. But it had nothing to do with whether or not I liked the story. I’ve just said over on File 770 that I am not the best as articulating *why* I like books: I’m not clear why anyone should have to be when voting for the Hugos. But for what it’s worth I loved the idea of a Ship’s AI being decanted into a human, and suffering much for that, I loved the old-fashioned space empire battles, the way that the under-dog had its way. It felt like the sort of thing I really enjoyed about SF when I was young, but brought up to date.
While Narrative can be useful. It must be in line with reality, or reasonably so. Julie, above, mentioned that narrative can be used to create that which it preaches (Self fulfilling prophecies are not always negative!). But the narrative still must mesh with reality. The self-fulfilling must be something a /narrative/ can influence. No matter how the narrative tries, saying ‘The apple tree is an orange tree’ will not make the apple tree produce oranges. Bards (and their various cultural equivalents) specialized in ‘narrative’, yet their narrative was in line with the world, with the realities of their people in their time. The majority of the things they dealt with were actual things that needed to be dealt with. To use a very simple Grimm’s example: The Narrative of ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ was ‘Don’t talk to strangers’ and ‘There are wolves in the forests, if you don’t stick to the paths and do the right things to avoid them you will be dinner’. The wolves were not imaginary. The potential for dire consequences to young girls who walked through the woods and got off the path were also real. Successful narratives address reality.
@Paul
Fair enough. I couldn’t make it past the first chapters because the style was grating. The pronouns didn’t even play into my virtual launching of the book across the room. But then, no one book is all things to all people.
I don’t think anyone should have to explain why they like something. Taste is personal. You might choose to explain, but you should never have to.
“Andrew, I have looked…”
Look Harder.
So you think that “If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love” was worthy of a nomination? A Nebula? It wasn’t even Sci-Fi / Fantasy, but a woman daydreaming ‘what if, if only’ at the bedside of her crush.
That’s what your side considered award winning SFF. It was shit, and I’m not going to waste effort in adding more adjectives to describe how bad.
You liked Ancillary. We didn’t.
This year…
We individually nominated stuff we liked. We got some of them on the ballot.
You’re bitching and claiming cheater cheater, when in fact, we went and NOMINATED as per the rules.
One person, one nomination. One person, one vote.
You’re panicking, upset, because what we liked got in. You’re panicking, upset, at the possibility that something you don’t like might win.
I’m asking what the selection process for the Puppies slate was. The answer is, “Brad chose the slate”. Correct?
What other slate should I compare this to? Who else has held a primary election? This was not just Brad posting a list of things he nominated or recommended, was it? This was Sad Puppies. These were the works selected for a push onto the ballot. So why _these_ works?
Because. Brad. Liked. Them.
Four words in simple English.
“Women who are Pirates in a phallocratic society are involved in a complex operation. First, it is necessary to Plunder–that is, righteously rip off – gems of knowledge that the patriarchs have stolen from us. Second, we must Smuggle back to other women our Plundered treasures.” – SIN BIG by gay radical feminist Mary Daly, The New Yorker, February 26, 1996
“Let’s run it on down. White males are most responsible for the destruction of human life and environment on the planet today. Yet who is controlling the supposed revolution to change all that? White males (yes, yes, even with their pasty fingers back in black and brown pies again).” – gay radical feminist Robin Morgan, “Goodbye to All That”, 1970.
*
“That genre, like gender, is a construct of the past.
“That ‘mainstream American art’ is almost exclusively created from within, and to serve, the white male colonial gaze. That is an established fact that requires no further proof or validation going forward.
“I’m white. This doesn’t make me ‘objective.’ In a racist society, there’s no such thing as a neutral position. So here’s my subjective position as I understand it: being white means having profound privilege, and for me personally, I intend to use that privilege to redistribute power.” – SFF author Monica Byrne, this week.
Gee, Monica Byrne is parroting gay radical feminism from 45 years ago. What an amazing coincidence. And Kameron Hurley Tweets us the link? How’d that happen?
*
“So the fuck what?” – Anonymous
I’m going to defend GRRM.
He is old, he is white, he is male. This alone is enough to convict anyone of any crime if you follow Progressive ideology. I have no idea if he is actually a progressive or not, but he certainly lives among them. They are his allies.
In addition to being born wrongskin, wronggender, and wrongage, he has added greatly to “rape culture.” His books certainly feature it, but it really exploded with the HBO series. He has taken much flack for it. The day may come when the progressive mob will turn on him for these crimes, but he has thus far warded them off.
All progressive crimes are forgiven for those who punch their enemies hard enough, so this is what he does. He has to. He can’t not, because if he stops doing so the mob he is surrounded by will turn and rip him to pieces. He has written about how much he hates McCarthyism, Alinsky tactics, and name calling, and I believe he truly means that. Then he turns around and does all those to the “other side.” He has no choice.
I cannot imagine being forced to live that way. There is a reason Christ commands us to pray for our enemies.
I’m not surprised that GRRM and the rest of them can’t see all the terrible things their side has done to conservatives and libertarians over the years. It’s the same reason so many of them were shocked when Gallo was held accountable for saying things they say every day. They can’t see the problem because they are part of it. To them, the sky is blue, water is wet, conservatives are evil Nazis who must be suppressed and mocked. We could post their vicious, ugly quotes all day and night and they still won’t see it.
@Paul: “It’s odd, everyone seems to come back to that pronoun use. It confused me for a while, then I thought it was quite clever. But it had nothing to do with whether or not I liked the story.”
Well, the thing about the pronoun use for me is that I’m an inveterate visualizer when I read; I want to be able to think of what a character looks like, and knowing the character’s sex obviously helps a lot with that. Being deliberately denied that by the story sends me straight into my second inveterate tendency, that of trying to figure out what I’m not being told from the clues in what I am told. My problem is that I simply can’t sustain the necessary effort, and put up with the concomitant frustration, for the duration of an entire novel where I have to do it for virtually every character; I find it fun in short stories but exhausting in anything over 15K words.
Now if there were moments or scenes in the book where it’s worth that kind of effort, I’d like to know about them. Character confrontations; key big-damn-heroes moments; deep emotionally resonant epiphanies; crowning moments of awesome, funny, or heartwarming, to use TVTropes’ terminology. The stuff you’d see in a trailer for the movie. That’s the kind of stuff I want to hear about.
“The Sad Puppies campaign has brought forward a large number of Science Fiction fans that had been left out of the process for recommending the best Science Fiction works.”
Left out of the process? Were they excluded? Were there barriers in their way?
But let’s agree that there were SF fans who were not involved in Hugo voting, and the Hugos would be better if they were. Why did they have to be brought in by voting on a slate? Why not just, “hey, you like SF, but you don’t like the Hugo winners? Did you know it is really easy to vote for your choices? All you have to do is buy a voting membership here, and you can nominate for and vote for whoever you like!”
“If you think the Sad Puppies are not representative of fandom, why should we not be entitled to claim that the pre-Sad Puppies 3 voters were not representative?”
You shouldn’t try reading my mind 🙂
I’m sure most/all sad puppies are SF fans (and have no interest in trying to define ‘fandom’)
I don’t know that anyone has ever claimed that Worldcon voters are a perfect representation of SF fans everywhere. They are Worldcon members, they are SF fans, that is all they have in common. They aren’t selected to fill a quota of religious believers or Latinos or New Yorkers. They join Worldcon, they vote on the Hugos.
Great, a simple answer to a simple question!
Just Brad, or were there others involved in the decision-making process?
Why Brad? How come he got to be in charge?
And that’s exactly what Brad did, only he added, “And I recommend these.”
Period.
What are the rules? Who is allowed to make recommendations, and who must first hold a primary election before they are allowed to make recommendations?
Brad R. Torgersen says:
Speaking of which, all you human beings who still think TOR needs to take more action to clean up internally, Peter Grant‘s put out a call to action.
Alright, so you’re supporting a campaign by Vox Day to get a person fired because she disagrees with you and wrote something ill-advised on her personal Facebook profile — for which she has apologized. I’m kinda disappointed, I must say.
Ray, are you a Sad Puppy supporter? No? Then you have no standing. Those of us that are Puppy supporters don’t have any problem with the recommendations.
Really, you SJBs are really picking nits these days. Can’t find anything to be offended by? Pick nits.
SPF,
Disappointed In the same way the calls were made for Brad to be censured by the military for postings on his own personal webpage?
kitten, that’s really disengenious. Coming over here and pretending to be open minded, then playing the usual SJB game of projection.
When I responded to you on MGC, I thought it possible that we could work our way into intelligent conversation. But you’re just here to play the blame game, and do the projection shit.
Not playing.
A number of people claimed both on Vox’s blog and in my house that they didn’t care that much until they were called ‘bots. They also claim to now be writing emails. I can confirm two of those claims.
Kitten,
No, I pointed out that Peter Grant made a call to action:
Link is here.
Peter’s pushing back against the “It’s all just bots!” notion, which I support. Dismissing your customer base when they’re miffed at you — it’s all just bots! — seems like a terrible business idea. I know a goodly number of Sad Puppies supporters have already written to Macmillan to express their displeasure. If those readers are being dismissed as bots, it behooves them to remind Macmillan that the “It’s just bots!” narrative is full of crap. Which it is.
Whatever happens to TOR’s employees, is a matter for Macmillan to decide. If the information Peter is getting is accurate, it seems not everyone at TOR is on the same page; nor is TOR on the same page with Macmillan. Publishing — as a rule — tends to be an eccentric industry, but there are limits. Especially when your company is owned by a bigger company, which in turn is owned by a still bigger company.
As for Irene Gallo’s apology, I read it as “I am sorry I upset people” not “I am sorry, what I said was wrong.” Two different things. And a lot of readers and consumers probably aren’t going to let her off the hook for it. Especially not when the charges she made — neo-nazism, sexism, racism — are so outrageous. That’s like a McDonalds spokesperson putting out some PR about she’s excited for the new hamburger that McDonalds will be doing, and then she turns around and says, “But everyone who eats meat us a murderer, with blood on his hands!”
Not exactly brilliant customer relations, that.
Me? I went out and bought a TOR book. Vinge’s Children of the Sky, part of the Zones of Thought series. I’ve enjoyed the prior books A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky. I like good stories. Both the reading and the telling of same.
Oh, and massive, massive duh. How could you be at Liberty? You are freaking deployed. My hyyyyuge bad. Sorry!
@Andrew: Look Harder
Sorry Andrew, but it just isn’t there. I spent quite some time asking in the last thread, and beyond an endless repetition of “asked and answered”-s, there is no actual answers there.
There is, like Martin Shoemaker above, trying to define Brad’s “…the shake-up was conducted 100% in the open, democratically, using a democratic process” as meaning that there was an open call for recommendations, then nominations were done democratically. However, this completely misses the question being asked – which was how was the entries in the slate determined in the first place?
Near the end of the last posts comments, one of the commenters here (Frank Probst) made a postulation that seemed pretty likely, but of course we won’t know unless Brad chooses to enlighten us with the nitty-gritty’s.
My summation of how the slate was formed: Various recommendations form sources both public and private, which was then finalised/ vetted/ curated by Brad and the humorously-named ELoE.
What were the recommendations like? How many people submitted recommendations? What criteria did Brad and the rest use in finalising the list? We’ll never know that, and that’s gonna be speculated on by various people.
But what the hey, we still have like 6 weeks to the Hugo’s. Got to do something to fill up the time.
Brad, you might say people were “kinda disappointed” with Gallo’s apology, since that’s the new in phrase. Or is “kinda disappointed” another of those arguments that only works in one direction?
A note for @spacefaringkitten – the explanation that Gallo’s FB post was personal and therefor less in bounds for criticism is invalid. She was using her FB for PROFESSIONAL purposes, promoting her employer’s products.
No out for her (or your argument) there.
I must say I am disappointed (well, not really, but then neither were you).
Quizzer,
I think Gallo’s “neo nazi” gaffe, compounded by the, “It’s all just bots!” claim, has gotten a lot of people off the wall in this thing. Not Puppy loves nor Puppy-kickers, they’re pissed at being labeled, and then being dismissed when they complain about being labeled. Again, terrible customer relations. But then, publishing is weird. Many editors — and certainly many writers — know absolutely nothing about customer relations.
@Quizzer
He is old, he is white, he is male. This alone is enough to convict anyone of any crime if you follow Progressive ideology. I have no idea if he is actually a progressive or not, but he certainly lives among them. They are his allies.
GRRM is an old-school marxist/communist. These are his people, that is why he defends them, he has always been on their side in this fight. Will they turn on him for his ‘promotion of rape’ in his books? I don’t know, he’s one of theirs, so as long as he’s fighting their fight I can’t tell you. But I think if anyone of us wrote a rape scene involving dogs our careers would be over. How he got away with it, I really can’t even begin to guess.
The second paragraph in the above should also have been in quotes, for some reason WP removed them, sorry.
Martin,
It’s clear to me now that “one way” ought to be a motto, on a Puppy-kicker t-shirt.
(cue Blondie)
Hey, Ray. Do you spreken cee doitch or just bigot-blind? That’d make a wonderful SF novel: people who can’t see bigotry, cuz how could that happen outside an SF novel?
*
Trigger Warning for [redacted]
Behind me one of the [redacted]’s chuckled and said, voice mocking, “Aren’t you a tough little [redacted].”
I turned to look at the stupid [redacted], to study the stupid [redacted]’s face. [redacted] was taller than most [redacted]s, but [redacted] and [redacted] as any of those [redacted]s. The [redacted] out-bulked me, but I was more of a [redacted], and I was also considerably more [redacted] than I looked because of the cornrows. The [redacted] didn’t realize what the [redacted] was playing with. The [redacted] was probably [redacted], to judge from the [redacted] gaze and angular mazelike patterns quilting [redacted] shirt. I wasn’t entirely certain. It wouldn’t have mattered, if I had been in [redacted] space. [Redacted] don’t care much about [redacted], just privilege and milking cows. And the language those [redacted]s speak–my own first language–doesn’t mark [redacted] in any way. This [redacted] we were speaking now did, and I could make trouble for myself if I used the wrong forms. It didn’t help that cues meant to distinguish [redacted] changed from [redacted] to [redacted], sometimes radically, and rarely made much sense to me, given their addiction to Kraft macaroni and cheese. All I know is I don’t [redacted] white men.
snowcrash, can you not understand simple English? Brad chose the recommendations he liked. The end. This has been answered so many times. You admit you have read those answers. You just don’t like the answer, so you keep spreading innuendo.
Brad,
Peter Grant’s “call to arms” includes the request to cc VD in every email, and describes VD as an ally. Given that you have been very careful about saying you are not VD, surely you should be more carefully about explicitly supporting his campaign, even at one step removed?
Also, bear in mind the the “bots” accusation has precisely one source: Peter Grant’s own “moles” saying that “some” senior personnel have suggested bots are being used. Seems like a shaky rationale to suddenly throw in with VD.
Hi Brad. I’m kinda saddened that you did wind up linking to that post by Peter Grant (which, I note, is a reposting in large part of an effort initiated by Vox Day)
Saddened, because I recall your words from elsewhere:
Ms Gallo 1. Took responsibility for her actions, 2. Acknowledged her mistake, 3. Apologized for those she hurt. (also 1.5 – indemnified her employer, which any HR would have insisted on!). To continue to parse her words and to attribute malicious intent without any basis seems, to me, to be hiding a joy buzzer of your own.
Yes yes yes!!! I think that people who understand truth as a predictive power instead of a social construct will always side with facts over fantasies in the end.
And no amount of hand waving or name calling or juvenile nattering about who ‘started it’ will change that.
My only real concern is that the Bander-log will drag a lot of others down with them as their fantasy world collapses
Mark, somehow I feel that in the depths of outer space you have some standard for bigotry you are attaching to VD. If VD said Jews are “diabolical” or arrogant transgender should come with trigger warnings, or there won’t be anything new in an all-black blues album because all-blacks, or China needs diversity cuz it’s a racial “monoculture,” would you add those to your Mark of Cain?
“they’re pissed at being labeled, and then being dismissed when they complain about being labeled”
So… the puppies don’t label people?
Snowcrash, has [redacted] ever apologized for saying SFF fans were “racist as fuck”? Do you think [redacted] should?
Scott this is very complex: we don’t label millions of people at a time, however we do label specific individuals who do. For example, we don’t say white people are KKK, just the KKK. Anyone who says white people are KKK, we call KKK. Got it?
Brad R. Torgersen says:
Kitten,
No, I pointed out that Peter Grant made a call to action.
Well, I don’t see any difference between pointing that out, no strings attached, and encouraging people to do what Vox Day asks of them. All Peter Grant has done is copy-pasted Day’s call to action.
It’s fine to disagree about what sort of science fiction should win awards but threatening people’s jobs and livelihood because of this mess is something I feel responsible adults should not do.
“we don’t label millions of people at a time”
The label SJW applies to exactly how many people, then?
c4c
@Quizzer: Found it.
http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/bokhari-on-tor-debacle.html#c4709332106636300354
With the mentions of Vox, police, and stalking, it sounds like Marston is using both usernames given the similarity of the content. Interestingly enough, Obvious/Vox Is A Stalker sounds quite lucid for a change, or attempting to not use his usual grievances and checkpoint spiels of hate and DARVO.
Frankly, the ASPs can have Yamamanama/Alauda/Clamps. Kinda wish they’d just keep him over there.
“Frankly, the ASPs can have Yamamanama/Alauda/Clamps. Kinda wish they’d just keep him over there”
They aren’t meeting with much traction at file770, either. I’m thinking they need to go watch Frozen again.
Snowcrash,
What, if anything, is contradictory about pointing out that Peter thinks real people should not be dismissed as bots, and me pointing out that “news cycle” style argumentation destroys the value of an apology? You seem to be confusing two things, here. It’s not a matter of Gallo apologizing to me personally, it’s a matter of Gallo using her FB page to promote a TOR product while simultaneously insulting TOR authors and TOR readers. Her apology only came after it was extracted from her by the company, and then, took no ownership of wrongdoing. She never recanted. She just said, “I am sorry I hurt some people” and that was the end of it.
This is why the non-apology apology never, ever works.
And the non-apology apology is part-and-parcel of “news cycle” argumentation. It’s not like she said, “I totally screwed up, guys, and I am so sorry for that, I hope people can forgive me for being wrong and shooting my mouth off!” An apology like this owns the core of the wrong-doing, and that earns her big points, and probably very few people have any complaint with her after that. Hell, I personally would gladly walk across the aisle to shake that hand.
But that’s not what she said. She said, “I don’t speak for TOR, I am sorry I hurt some people, the end.” And now that customers are getting off the fence and calling for a better customer-focused redress of their grievances — Gallo never recanted the blanket charges of neo-nazism, racism, sexism, etc. — people are calling the customers bots and insisting those customers aren’t real.
Yeah, see how that works out: your employee insults your customer base (and the producers of your product!) then you doubt the veracity of customer complaints and call those customers (literally) un-real. I know of no universe wherein that strategy makes for good consumer rapport.
I support customers not being treated like malware.
And yes, I fully hope Glyer at File 770 sees this and sticks it on his blog: Brad R. Torgersen thinks readers and customers should not be treated like malware.
Ms Gallo 1. Took responsibility for her actions,
That I can grant.
2. Acknowledged her mistake,
Her mistake, according to her, was “I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals…”
3. Apologized for those she hurt.
Firstly, you don’t apologize FOR people you hurt. Secondly, she did not apologize for what she said. She apologized “to anyone hurt by my comments.” There is no parsing of her words. An apology would be an admission that what she said was wrong, and in that wrong statement of non-fact she also hurt people. What she has said in her non-apology apology is that she is not sorry for what she said, just that some people were hurt by it.
And in some ways that’s fine with me. Because at least she’s being honest and standing by her declaration of hate, even if it is devoid of any known facts that encompass all of those who make up the SP side of the issue. Her “apology” keeps her main declaration intact because it wasn’t her words she thinks were wrong. It’s that some people were hurt by them. Because she did paint with a wide brush.
I don’t really consider myself an SP, per se. I know people on both sides of this debacle. And yes, in any large group of people you can probably single out a bad apple or two. And if so, you call those individuals out. You don’t smear an entire group. Her comments did a great disservice, and readers like me who give (gave?) money to TOR will now remember that Irena Gallo openly hates us, and our friends who do more readily identify as SPs. And that she is not the only key player at TOR to vent her contempt may not be much of a surprise, but the lengths she went to really drive that contempt home sure was impressive.
The whole thing is sad. That the biggest purveyor of SF/F is peopled with a segment of people so openly hateful of those who drift from their 3×5 card of preferred opinion — including readers, who have also been targeted for being stupid and brain-dead and idiots and a host of other like comments — and do openly and publicly malign them….how is this not a sad thing?
And to think all of this disgusting display of unprofessionalism and childish bullshite is because of a dusty and unimportant rocketship bowling trophy.
You know the ASP double standard is clear here.
We’re supposed to accept Gallo’s ‘apology’ because they thought it was good enough
We’re supposed to keep answering to their increasingly convoluted and impossible standards because they’re not satisfied by our answers.
That we, the injured parties by Gallo’s statements, are not satisfied by her non-apology is ‘unreasonable’ and ‘foolish.’
That we, who participate in Sad Puppies are satisfied by the process by which we participated, is not good enough and disregarded.
They’re here with the same sticks to beat the stubborn puppies for not doing as they’re ordered.
They’re allowed to / we’re not allowed to is very, very obvious.
Mark, do you consider “It’s like black women literally don’t understand how anything works” a problem?
Do you think saying “The gay black broad perspective is basically the Dunning-Kruger effect apex of all civilization” is a problem?
How about “It is no coincidence that my book review column features no black authors.” Is that nice?
How would you feel about someone saying “‘authentic’ seems often to mean ‘what Asian people would approve'”
Do you like “Hard as it to believe, somewhere right now, a black male is explaining to a white woman what they =really= meant.”
“Bollywood is, alas, dominated by non-white Hindus.” How does that set with you?
*
Here’s a nice little chat:
“Just read another call from a black man about the need for ‘nuance’ rather than shrill ranting.”
“as if they’d know ‘nuance’ if they tripped on it”
“nuance is when we are complaining about what they don’t want us to complain”
*
Here is the essence of social justice: “‘I know I speak for everyone.’ – LOL Oprah Winfrey, standing in front of a lot of White people”
“Old black broads. What are going to do with them?”
“I suspect the ability to push boundaries and not cause hurt requires the pusher to not be a lower-middle class black gay man.”
“Well-educated Jews with a lot of opinions and just enough smarts to think they have it all figured out make me so goddamn tired.”
Would anyone like to step up and defend that tide of filth from a Nebula nominee, an editor, a lit-org president, a member of a Hugo nominated franchise, a review editor, and then tell us how many meters to stay away from Vox Day? Get out the police tape and let’s take some measurements. I’m not sure but I think it’s this ancient archaic thing called a “principle.” Or it may be “law.” I’m easily confused. This “is white stupidity week.”
Scott, the SJW label applies to actual quotes by actual people who talk smack about millions of whites, men and heterosexuals at a time and call it “social justice.” It never refers to skin or sex or anonymous people. It also applies to actual people who support such quotes – again – in actual quotes, such as “Bravo” and “this!”
Duskstar,
I agree, the double-standard is pretty glaring. And one of the reasons why I’ve tried (as much as I can) to avoid getting into any back-and-forth with committed critics. They’ll just keep taking the football away, like Lucy does with Charlie Brown. “Here is the standard, you meet my standard, and it’s all good . . . OOPS! I moved the standard, and you landed flat on your back like you always do! Oh Charlie Brown, you blockhead! It’s your own fault! Now here, come kick the ball again. I promise I won’t move it this time!”
And Scott, we cannot do this every time we speak:
@Brad
Gallo’s apology:
About my Sad/Rabid Puppies comments: They were solely mine. This is my personal page; I do not speak on behalf of Tor Books or Tor.com. I realize I painted too broad a brush and hurt some individuals, some of whom are published by Tor Books and some of whom are Hugo Award winners. I apologize to anyone hurt by my comments.
I’ve seen actual non apology apologies– i.e. weaselly terms like “oh if I offended anyone” or “mistakes were made”, where there is no ownership or acknowledged that hurt was caused. This isn’t it. She’s owned up, and admitted that people were hurt by her actions, and she apologized to those she hurt.
It’s fair if you feel that the apology doesn’t go far enough. But to call it a non-apology goes too far.
So, in your opinion, no one on the puppy side has ever used the term SJW to refer to, for example, the entire body of posters over at File770? Since I’m one of those commenters, you can probably understand my curiosity.
“Brad R. Torgersen thinks readers and customers should not be treated like malware.”
And I predict their answer will be: “Vox Day!”
Hmm, on further analysis, the poster Obvious/Vox Is A Stalker is possibly Marston, but also possibly not. If it is, I wonder if he feels so confident of his proxy usage.
@Brad It is rather tiring having to listen to these petulant, tantrum throwing manchildren again and again, but since Marston’s taught the folks at File 770 how to use proxies, they’re likely to be back, even if they were banned for being exceedingly boring, repetative trolls.
Not saying you will ban them, just going by the hypothetical.
Hope that you’ll have chances to acclimatize over there, and don’t forget to make sure to stay hydrated, and your electrolytes up!
For me, it’s zzz time.
Scott, can you tell us why exactly you find the term “SJW” so offensive? It sounds like the label “Social Justice Warrior” would be a *good* thing?
@Quizzer
Let’s not be disingenuous shall we?
If you insist, why don’t you look at the context it’s being used in by the commenters here, and by Brad. Does it *sound* like it’s a good thing?
Right, when Vox says “SJWs always lie” I’m sure he means that as a compliment.
I wasn’t being disingenuous. I was asking a question because I don’t know the answer and would like to.
Yes Ray, Brad decided all by himself without consulting anyone that certain works were to be nominated.
He then declared that those were the nominated works and World Con had no choice but accept his edict.
And now Brad will force everyone to vote for those works he unilaterally chose to ‘win’ the nominations to win the Hugo’s, unless he just unilaterally decides that those works win and again World Con will have to obey.
Brad is an amazingly powerful and scary dude.
@snowcrash: Let’s not be disingenuous shall we? Why don’t you go actually read through all thing things you HAVE been linked to (and the link I, myself, provided that you never responded to) and follow the rabbit trails, do the research and actually approach this as a neutral party rather than demonstrating a particularly egregious case of confirmation bias. Across, by my count, three threads (two long running and this one) you have ignored the arguments, nit picked, repeated your questions without a trace of indication that you had truly read what you were responding to. You, Spacekitten, Scott, and various others come here, and talk in circles ignoring evidence presented to you. Please do not complain about getting soaked when you argue against all evidence that water is wet and the people you are arguing with decide to make the point by dumping you in the swimming pool with your clothes on.
Quizzer: You claim to read Vox’s blog, do you think he uses the term as “a good thing?”
Wyrd: Since you mention me, I don’t care at all about the source of the puppy picks. I’m more concerned with Brad’s Narratives vs Facts post that seems to ignore a plank in his eye.
If the puppies are outraged over being called robots, and justified in that anger according to Brad, then aren’t the people painted as “puppy kickers” and “SJWs” allowed that same justification?
I asked a simple, straightforward question. I genuinely would like to know the answer.
Quizzer: I’ve given you your answer. The usage of the term here in these comments and on the other blogs that you frequent makes it clear that it is not proffered as a compliment.
So I have your permission to come up with any reason my imagination can muster as to why you might be offended? So noted.
@scott
If the puppies are outraged over being called robots, and justified in that anger according to Brad, then aren’t the people painted as “puppy kickers” and “SJWs” allowed that same justification?
Outraged? No, your side does the outrage, we’re just annoyed.
And no, they’re not allowed it at all, because they started it. When you start slinging insults and accusations and the other side decides to return the compliment, you have no right to complain.
Oh, and I’m fairly sure that it is your side that coined the SJW phrase, we just ran with it.
Except the ones being called puppy kickers and SJW are, by and large, ACTING that way and it is their actions that define what they are. File 770 comments, Making Light, and many of the cited blogs are full (as in the vast majority of posts that made it through moderation) of people trashing the SP campaigns with rather unimaginative invective and vitriol. (Christopher Chupik has been collecting quite a few of the relevant quotes for an easy sampling.) It is not unreasonable to say ‘The regular posters on X blog behave in this manner’ when the record amply demonstrates they do.
There is a world of difference between saying “I call someone who slanders and libels a group calling themselves Frogs the Frog Roasters” and saying “All people calling themselves Frogs are vile persons who are associated with mass murders and wish to commit the same, and should be denied the right to make their livings.” Puppy kickers and SJW fall into the last category. If they act that way it is there actions that claim the label. And that is why Mr. Torgersen coined the term ‘CHORF’ to differentiate between the long standing con running crews and the long standing con running crews that were acting like the north end of a south bound mule. A person who runs is a runner. A person who writes is a writer. A person who kicks puppies is a puppy kicker.
Before you start asking about more ’cause’ go to Monster Hunter Nation and read the two years of posts on the Sad Puppies campaign. Sort through According to Hoyt and Mad Genius Club reading up on the SFWA incidents (In which Kate Paulk and Sarah Hoyt were jointly decreed the worst person in the world.) Follow the links, read their own words. Read the comments, look at the back story. If you think that livlihoods are not threatened over this kerfuffle, Sarah Hoyt has written on the topic several times and the things she, herself went through.
Brad,
You’re going very big on a claim that some people at TOR were dismissing complaints as bots, including promoting (at one remove) a campaign by VD, and yet that claim comes from anonymous sources repeating what is alleged to be company gossip. Have you got anything more than Peter Grant says Unnamed Source says? Have you spoken to TOR? Is this really enough for you to step across the gap you’ve tried to put between you and VD?
You’d be wrong about SJW, but that’s fine. And I’m not outraged, I’m just seeing huge failures in logic here.
I believe Brad used the term “pissed” and then he suggested joining Vox’s letter-writing campaign to make a woman lose her job. Is that just “annoyed?”
And I would hardly call 75% of James May’s posts merely “annoyed.”
“Don’t label us” sounds weak after coining terms like “puppy-kicker” and “CHORF”
Brad,
I see your new blogpost avoids endorsing a campaign linked to VD, and selects an alternate one instead. Thank you for listening, I appreciate it.
No, I’m right about that.
And I’m also right that you’re just a troll.
Bye Troll.
Click to access UNPAN000572.pdf
That’s a UN document from 2001. It predates Brad’s usage by 14 years.
“Ironically, there is a new warrior for our times; it is the social justice warrior. These warriors fight with words instead of weapons, and wage war within our society instead of on other shores. Taking a stand against the strong forces of the status quo, the new warriors step forth into a high risk environment to speak out against social injustices. These new social justice warriors separate themselves from the crowd by publicly exercising the right to free speech in order to right the social wrongs. With people like Mahatma Ghandi and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. as examples, they speak out on behalf of poor and needy people, the afflicted, and those unfairly discriminated against because of their race, sexual orientation, or disability. At first, they fought for equity- to have the same procedures applied in the same way for all people. But now they speak in terms of equality, questioning the disparate effects of these long-established procedures like the ones for funding school districts.
Often claiming a moral authority as they speak, these warriors question the motives and moral integrity of those they oppose. Many of their opponents are the established governmental leaders of local communities, states or even the country; other opponents are the industrial and business leaders accused of polluting the air and land and getting special favors for their large campaign contributions. These warriors make accusations about the quid pro quos, the abuses of power and the excessive self-interests that cause social injustice.”
I’ll even make it easy – here is Stephen St. Onge’s roundup of MHN, MGC, and AtH posts on the topic from the last few years.
[St. Onge]
Wrong. We said that the Hugo/Campbell awards had become a
popularity contest dominated by a small clique (in many cases, less than
100 voters); we said that they were snobs; and we said that by getting
people nominated that didn’t normally have a chance, we would have the
fun of seeing their heads explode. We set out to be obnoxious and annoy
you Rightfen. We said ‘We want entertaining fiction on the ballot’. We
said ‘There’s lots of stuff we like that won’t get on the ballot unless
we put it there, so lets put it there.’ We succeeded. Very Happy Very
Happy Very Happy
And all this stuff you say we complained about, we didn’t even
mention.
I append a long list of blog posts, mostly Larry’s, but with
some other contributors. It spells out how the Puppy Gladdening
Movement came to be.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2011/01/14/hugo-awards-it-is-time-to-get-your-nominations-in-and-yes-im-eligable/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2011/04/25/i-am-a-campbell-award-finalist/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2011/05/24/why-spending-50-to-be-eligible-to-vote-for-the-hugos-is-actually-a-really-good-deal/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2011/12/18/random-updates-and-fun-with-internet-critics/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2011/12/21/my-favorite-short-story-of-all-time-free-today-tabloid-reporter-to-the-stars/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/02/23/how-you-can-make-a-difference-getting-me-nominated-for-a-hugo/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/08/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/12/quick-update-talking-guns-with-movie-stars-and-crashing-my-truck-into-a-lake/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/16/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-2-a-very-special-message/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/23/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-3-wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/26/only-5-days-left-to-get-your-lonestarcon-supporting-membership-so-you-can-vote-for-the-hugo/
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/how-to-get-correia-nominated-for-a-hugo-part-4-ten-ways-im-different-than-stephen-king-and-thus-deserve-a-hugo-nomination/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/01/31/today-is-the-last-day-to-register-to-nominate-for-the-hugos/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/02/01/its-the-final-countdown-to-register-to-nominate-for-the-hugos/
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/hugo-nominating/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/02/28/hugo-nominating-there-is-only-ten-days-left/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/03/02/more-hugo-nominating-ideas/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/03/06/hugo-nominating-deadline-is-this-sunday/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/03/09/various-updates-and-hugo-nominations-due-tomorrow/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/03/13/political-fun-with-facebook/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/04/01/the-sad-puppies-hugo-campaign-sorta-successful-for-everybody-but-me/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/07/25/reminder-only-a-few-days-left-for-hugo-voting/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/09/02/various-updates-sad-puppies-fishing-for-reviews/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/11/11/fisking-the-nyt-it-isnt-just-me-my-whole-religion-cant-be-real-writers/
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/back-from-texas-and-now-it-is-sad-puppies-season-2/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/14/sad-puppies-2-the-illustrated-edition/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/15/sad-puppies-video/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/21/quick-reminder-sad-puppies-2-only-available-until-the-end-of-the-month/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/23/some-reactions-to-sad-puppies-2-rainbow-puppy-lighthouse-the-huggening/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/27/time-is-almost-up-for-sad-puppies-2-rainbow-puppy-lighthouse-the-huggening/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/28/ending-binary-gender-in-fiction-or-how-to-murder-your-writing-career/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/01/31/last-call-for-sad-puppies/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/02/18/sad-puppies-err-hugo-nominations-now-open/
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2014/02/18/my-last-post-on-sfwa-pinky-swear/
chris-gerrib.livejournal.com/2014/01/17/
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/archive/1/2014-02
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/02/19/soap-operah-recap-and-sarah-hoyt-wins-the-internets/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/02/20/sad-puppies-2-the-debatening/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/03/06/yay-i-have-internet-again-the-week-in-review/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/03/18/sad-puppies-update-time-is-almost-up-to-nominate/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/03/25/my-hugo-slate/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/03/27/last-minute-hugo-slate-thoughts/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/03/31/today-is-the-deadline-for-sad-puppies/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/15/larry-f-correia-international-lord-of-hate/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/20/a-blow-has-been-struck-against-puppy-related-sadness/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/24/an-explanation-about-the-hugo-awards-controversy/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/28/my-hugo-controversy-makes-the-usa-today/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/30/and-now-the-hugo-controversy-makes-the-washingon-post/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/06/02/fisking-the-guardians-village-idiot-part-1/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/06/03/fisking-the-guardians-village-idiot-part-2/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/07/24/the-official-alphabetical-list-of-author-success/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/07/30/hugo-voting-ends-tomorrow/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/08/18/hugo-aftermath-post/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/09/01/fisking-the-guardians-village-idiot-again/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/09/02/the-guardians-village-idiot-admits-to-libel/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/11/10/sjw-cannibal-feeding-frenzy/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/12/10/fisking-the-guardian-again-this-time-for-hp-lovecraft/
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/announcing-sad-puppies-3/
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/why-sad-puppies-3-is-going-to-destroy-science-fiction/
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/how-you-can-aid-the-valiant-sad-puppies-3-campaign/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/01/21/sad-puppies-3-only-a-few-days-to-register-to-vote/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/01/26/sad-puppies-3-the-ensaddening/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/02/sad-puppies-3-the-slatening/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/05/breitbart-reports-on-sad-puppies/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/09/sad-puppies-3-update/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/10/sad-puppies-3-update-2-1-addendum-to-prior-update/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/18/book-bomb-novellas-from-the-sad-puppies-slate/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/19/book-bomb-success-behold-the-power-of-sad-puppies/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/23/the-social-justice-warrior-racist-reading-challenge-a-fisking/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/26/book-bomb-results-more-free-stories-and-sad-puppies-slate-update/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/03/sad-puppies-short-story-update-free-championship-btok-and-tuesdays-with-molakesh-eligibility/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/04/sad-puppies-book-bomb-best-related-work-and-campbell-award-for-best-new-writer/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/09/sad-puppies-3-nomination-deadline-and-an-audio-interview-with-me-and-brad/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/10/final-reminder-for-sad-puppies-hugo-noms-are-due-today/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/31/sad-puppies-update-the-melt-down-continues/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/04/sad-puppies-update-the-nominees-announced-and-why-i-refused-my-nomination/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/06/a-letter-to-the-smofs-moderates-and-fence-sitters-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/07/addendum-to-yesterdays-letter/
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/04/07/not-your-shield-rhiain/
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/03/30/sad-puppies-update-honesty-from-the-other-side/
@scott: It’s less “don’t label us” and more “Don’t label us sight unseen, especially when the labels have zero grounding in our actions.”
As for SJW as a term, I have seen the people who proclaim themselves to be such. I ran into my first one almost 20 years ago, self proclaimed feminist and SJW. She was gleefully bragging about trying to manufacture evidence to put a man in jail for a crime that didn’t happen. Because he was male (The case went no where, largely because of her idiocy in publicly bragging about what she was trying to do). I have run into many others over the years. 100% of the self-identified SJWs have had the same attitude of gleeful revenge and sadistic malice. About 80% of the self-identified Feminists had identical attitudes. Yes, they call themselves Social Justice Warriors and have since AT LEAST 1998. I will gladly apply the label they, themselves, invented to the actions they, themselves, associate it with.
“And that’s exactly what Brad did, only he added, “And I recommend these.””
But that _isn’t_ exactly what Brad did.
The slate post said “Gathered here is the best list (we think!) of entirely deserving works, writers, and editors ….” and “If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might…”
So, first of all, either there were more people involved in decision, or he is presenting the slate as something that was arrived at through some sort of democratic process involving all the people who made recommendations. But you’ve said neither of those things is true, it was Brad and Brad alone. Was he using the royal ‘we’?
And secondly, he didn’t say they were the people he was voting for personally, and he didn’t recommend any of them personally. Has he ever reviewed “Lines of Departure”, or said why it deserved a vote? He presented “the Sad Puppies Hugo Slate”
There was a previous post “how-you-can-aid-the-valiant-sad-puppies-3-campaign” which was about how to join Worldcon and vote on really good SF.
We’ve been going back and forth on Brad’s role and how the slate was assembled, and you seem to be saying the details aren’t important. So let me ask you – if it isn’t important how a slate was assembled, why is it important that there was a slate? Why did Sad Puppies go beyond “here is how to vote” to “here is the Sad Puppies list of the best things to vote for”?
The only one insisting that it’s important is you. So answer your own question.
Brad made recommendations, based on recommendations from others. Other people considered those recommendations and made their own decisions. You don’t like those decisions. And it seems you’re seeking any way at all to delegitimize those decisions.
People disagree with you. That’s not a mysterious conspiracy, that’s real life.
“Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Sad Puppies party? Who was there? We want names!”
Yawn.
“for which she has apologized. ”
DING, DING, DING.
No she didn’t. She offered on backhanded, mealy-mouthed, response. “I painted with too broad a brush…” No, she lied. “I apologize to anyone hurt…” But she didn’t retract the comment, so in fact she stands by the lie.
She was not vague in her accusations. She called everyone involved in SP3 – which includes me, my family, and my friends unrepentant racist, misogynists, and homophobes.
I want an honest apology and a retraction. Yes, it was her page, guess what, it still reflects on TOR books.
Martin,
Ray’s problem is that because he is incapable of thinking for himself (which is why he is here spouting the exact same line as snowcrash and so many others) so he believes that no one else is capable of thinking for themselves.
So it doesn’t matter really what happened, only the narrative matters and it must be upheld. The narrative is Brad decided on his own what the entries were going to be, and we all just followed in lockstep.
The simple fact that Ray is following in lockstep shows that Ray can not think for himself on this topic. That he can not see anything else. He is blind to it, because these things do not exist for him.
I did send emails in today. Up to now I hadn’t, as I have publically said I accepted her apology, and Tor’s statement of the same.
To be blunt, I don’t give a flying chingada what Vox does. I sent in those emails because of the multiple sources saying people at Tor are trying to spin this as bots. Their actions are what concern me here.
I said as much in my emails, along with repeating that I personally am not calling for firings or boycotts.
Guess what? If it is just a rumor and they aren’t treating them like bot emails all I’ve done is waste a bit of there time. Regrettable, but since the reason I sent the emails in the first place was because I don’t want Tor to damage their company I see it as an acceptable risk.
If the rumors are right, well, hopefully the emails can convince them to reconsider.
Thanks for not responding Ray, Scott and Mark. In not doing so, you have. If you have brains or any kind of self-awareness that goes beyond peeling an orange, prove it.
Snowcrash, Gallo’s “apology” doesn’t qualify as one because she doesn’t admit her actual fault: that she claimed the Puppy groups are evil people supporting books by evil authors, when it wasn’t true. All it amounts to, in fact, is an admission that maybe a _few_ people in the Puppy groups aren’t evil, and Gallo didn’t mean to slander _those_ people, just the ones that really deserved it.
As for the botnet claim, I don’t find it outrageous; I think it’s pitiful – an attempt to evade recognizing that the Puppy groups are a large tranche of SF readers, whom a prominent SF publisher is unwise to offend.
Quizzer: Scott, can you tell us why exactly you find the term “SJW” so offensive? It sounds like the label “Social Justice Warrior” would be a *good* thing?
Scott: I’ve given you your answer. The usage of the term here in these comments and on the other blogs that you frequent makes it clear that it is not proffered as a compliment.
Example, upthread: “SJWs always lie”
Quizzer: So I have your permission to come up with any reason my imagination can muster as to why you might be offended? So noted.
I’m with Quizzer (heh): Why is it offensive to you? I’ll try to be more clear:
Example, on a Pokemon site: “Philatelists always lie.”
Matching Quizzer’s question to the example: Why do you find the term “philatelist” so offensive?
Hence Quizzer et al. perceive you as saying : I’m offended, you figure out how.
Try again?
P.S. It’s not really “don’t label us.” It’s don’t lie about the labels you attach to us.”
Good luck finding examples of Mr. Torgersen doing the latter.
Finding the exact right box to put people in and label the box is more an SJW* thing. It’s “don’t slander us” i.e. put us all in the big ugly box called “neo-Nazi” or “misogynist” even when it’s objectively obvious that libertarian women don’t belong there.
If you’re not a CHORF, great! You should have no trouble linking to your many, many informed, humble, courteous and well-reasoned posts. This will clear up the problem in no time flat.
Hmm… You object to having to preemptively prove you’re on the side of the angels? I agree that seems unfair. Can I get a screen shot of you agreeing with me? It will be useful down the road.
I’m happy to disarm. I’m just going to make sure you’re on board with the disarmament treaty, first.
“She was gleefully bragging about trying to manufacture evidence to put a man in jail for a crime that didn’t happen”
Well, that sounds like a horrible person, I’m sorry you had to deal with that. I suppose I don’t need to point out the fallacy of assuming that because of that one horrible interaction all self-proclaimed feminists are trying to get people unfairly imprisoned?
My understanding of the term is that it became abbreviated to SJW during the early days of Tumblr as a mocking of people who didn’t actually do any “IRL” activism, but merely posted stuff about it. The people who were using it unironically didn’t abbreviate it. And certainly the majority usage of it on the internet today isn’t limited to people as clearly evil as the person you mentioned.
Anyway, I need to flounce so I can get some stuff done away from the computer, but thanks for the conversation.
Ack, now I have to double-flounce. James, there’s no need to throw insults. I’ve been nothing but civil here.
John,
Respectfully: I do not approve when the antis accuse the SPs of mindlessly following orders, and I disapprove just as much in the other direction. I know, you’re sure you have reasons for saying so, but I still find it to be a dehumanizing claim that I cannot accept: first, because principles should work in all cases, not just cases you agree with; and second, because dehumanizing them absolves them of responsibility for their own words and actions. Even assuming they’re following orders (a statement for which I have no proof), that’s still a choice on their part. They are no more bots than we are.
I think I saw this written (in sweat and blood) over the doorway to a Basic Combat Training barracks somewhere.
@scott: YOu missed the point that every, single self-identified SJW I have ever met behaved in the same manner. Not to the same degree but that was 1998 and in the intervening years I have run into more and more of them, all pratting about social justice. All of them. Every last one of them in the same breath as wanting to help the ‘little people’ talking about how they can ruin someone’s life in the most pious virtuous tones because he or she did not follow their line. 100%. At least with the feminists there are 20% that I’ve run into that aren’t completely nuts.
Ray,
Fuck off. It has been listed on many blogs and many commenters many times over how the recommended list was arrived at. You obviously don’t like the answer. Fine. You have the right to be an obtuse dick. But stop whining about not getting an answer.
I believe one definition of insanity is performing the same action over and over and expecting a different result each time. Maybe you simply need the help of a licensed professional.
Vox is a Stalker,
How is threatening someone who is threatening you first a bad thing? If someone was messing with my site, I would do the same thing. The fact that you don’t understand a person’s right to defend themselves speaks worlds about how out of touch with reality you are.
“For it’s Puppy this, an’ Puppy that, an’ “Chuck the Nazis out!”
But it’s “Why ain’t these Tor books movin”?” when your sales bottom out;
An’ it’s Puppy this, an’ Puppy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Puppies ain’t no bloomin’ fools — you bet that Puppies see!”
— With apologies to Rudyard Kipling.
Vox is a Stalker,
It was in your email. Vox said he would dox Gabrielle and more if she didn’t cease stalking his site. Stalking IS threatening. Are you obtuse or simply lacking in reading comprehension?
Vox is a Stalker,
This is my shocked face.
When we say SJWs always lie we are referring to the ideology which is the basis of their so-called “principles.” SJWs self-identify as gender equality intersectionalists. The faux-academic lingo they use is completely in keeping with that assessment. This ideology was created by lesbians and later fused with the intersectional idea of racial and other multipliers of oppression, e.g. postcolonialism, disabled, etc.
Modern Third Wave Gender Feminism is built on the following principles:
Binary gender is a fake social construct which acts to oppress women and is upheld by a patriarchy
Women are created by society, not born
Heterosexuality is “compulsory” via repeated acts of cultural peer pressure and shaming
Heterosexuality amounts to an ideology
Men are misogynists
Men are sexists See: compulsory heterosexuality
The system of Patriarchy privileges men as a social group, however a byproduct of that system is that men and men’s humanity is also harmed.
Intersectionalists cannot be racists or sexists because prejudice + power
Gender is far more fluid than the oppressive patriarchy allows
Patriarchy must be destroyed
The historic idea of the nuclear family as the norm is oppressive and corrupt
All whites benefit from racial privilege
All men benefit from male privilege
All men benefit from sexism
Men destroyed a more natural non-binary gender equality sometime immediately prior to the rise of civilizations
All men benefit from their own “rape culture” via the fear it brings on women
Gender feminists do not wish equality within the current systems
White males have historically plundered the planet at the expense of others
Western civilization is built on white slavery and colonialism
The contributions of women and non-whites to Western civilization have been systematically erased
The presence of non-whites in medieval Europe has been systematically erased by whites
White male privilege cares ONLY about white male privilege, and there is no goal except maintaining that position of power
The repetitive visualizing of women in more important roles in pop culture via the poststructuralist concepts of “agency” and “performance” will bring that about as reality
The repetitive visualization of boys and girls in non-gendered roles (no toy dolls and soldiers) will allow nature to take its true course
Masculinity is “toxic”
Some of those are direct quotes. I leave it to you to figure out from where.
Anyone who has followed the writings of Anita Sarkeesian and more importantly, her producer and co-writer Jonathan McIntosh on Twitter knows they believe in those things as core to their mission. Anyone who has followed Brianna Wu knows those things are core to her mission. Anyone who has followed the writings of gender feminists in SFF as well as their ideological icons dating back to the late ’60s knows those things are core to their mission. Anyone who has followed the male “allies” of these gender feminists in SFF will see them parroting these concepts. Anyone who has studied the French Queer Theory critiques of Judith Butler will recognize these concepts. These are not “feminists” in any sense Americans recognize the word. They are not legalistic equal rights feminists. This “feminism” is based on psycho-sexual, anthropological and linguistic concepts pioneered by European intellectuals such as Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault, Freud, Claude Levi-Strauss, etc. It doesn’t have jack shit to do with Susan B. Anthony or woman’s suffrage.
“Liars” is not entirely apt. “Deluded,” “sociopathic” and even “insane” is better.
Ray:
There is no data dump available. So at some point you need to accept that and move on. I’d have liked to have seen it too. Be annoyed/angry/pissed/whatever. It’s done. If you want to help perfect SP4, see below.
I ask you: if SP3 had been done perfectly, would you support it? If not, I think we are done.
If you hate slates, fine. I do too. Here are some slates:
http://ruthlessculture.com/2013/02/18/my-draft-hugo-ballot-2013/
And the links link to others, etc.
Did you complain then? Or are you angry at SP3’s success?
I support the SDV-LPE proposal. It won’t pass, but I support it. It won’t pass for the simple reason that the answer to FAQ #1 is no.
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016262.html#016262
The success of SP3 was unexpected, as has been noted.
Brad took suggestions via FB, email, whatever. He made his list. GRRM and you-all keep pointing to a Google doc that assembles something from stuff. Like it’s the Voice Of The Puppies! It isn’t. Never was. Some person did up a doc. You: Truth! Me: Huh?
As for “open” and “democratic” those have been answered to my satisfaction — and to many of the SP3 crowd. If you are unhappy with the answers that you have received, I offer this:
1) perhaps you can suggest improvements to the SP process to Kate Paulk who has volunteered to be in charge of SP4. So she can make it perfect for you.
2) tough beans.
BTW, even GRRM has asked if he can nominate for SP4. I responded to his post that he could have offered for SP3. His input would/will/might be equivalent mine and that might be zero.
Me? I’ve got a Fredric Brown novel that fell apart as I started to read it (bought on eBay). I need get these leafs in order.
v
April 2012 Saladin Ahmed’s Is Game of Thrones Too White post
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 sexual 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 double Hugo-winning post about women erased from military history
June 2013 N. K. Jemisin Australian Continuum Guest of Honor Speech
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
Aug 2014 Debut SF “genderblind” novel Ancillary Justice has historic awards success – gender intersectionalist work sweeps all the major awards
Spring 2015: SJWs react to Sad Puppies initiative as being that of misogynist white supremacist homophobes
Black Widow “agency” controversy in the Avengers film
Sansa Stark controversy in Game of Thrones – the feminist website The Mary Sue discontinues coverage of Game of Thrones
Everything on that list is in complete alignment with intersectional gender feminist concerns regarding the lack of morality and spirituality of straight white men
“The only one insisting that it’s important is you. So answer your own question.”
I think the effect of publishing a Sad Puppy slate, with five choices in each category, was to encourage block voting. I think it lead to a lot of people filling out nominations based on the slate, not on their own reading*. And I think this is bad for the award.
My understanding is that, after the voting ends, the nominating ballots will be released and can be analysed. So, do you
1 – think “no way!” There will be very little correlation between ballots. There are a lot of Puppy choices on the shortlist because there were a lot of Puppy voters
2 – think, “so what!?” There’s absolutely no problem with people filing out their ballot with the slate picks when they didn’t know what to vote for otherwise
3 – think,”of course!”. Brad’s choices were obviously the best short stories, fan writers, related works… eligible for the Hugos. His recommendation gave them a little more publicity but they would probably have been nominated anyway, they are just that good
*note, I don’t think many people will have copied the slate exactly. People will have added some of their own choices, dropped some things from the slate. But I think there will be quite a few ballots where 60% or more or the places are from the slate
“People disagree with you. That’s not a mysterious conspiracy, that’s real life.”
Hmmm, I thought this whole kerfuffle started because Worldcon voters weren’t voting for the things Brad thought they should, and this was evidence of an evil SJW conspiracy?
I think none of the above. I wait for evidence before drawing conclusions. You should try it some time.
And this kerfuffle started because when Larry said, “Gee, there seems like an imbalance here,” people told him, “Tough. Anybody can vote. Tell your friends to get involved.” So he did, and now those same people are saying he (last year) and Brad (this year) did something wrong.
“I ask you: if SP3 had been done perfectly, would you support it?”
We probably have different definitions of ‘perfectly’. Why is it necessary for Brad (and possibly his friends?) to agree a list that is the Sad Puppies Slate? Why a single list, rather than Brad recommending some things, Larry recommending some things, you recommending some things in comments or on your own blog? Why winnow the list down to five per category?
“Here are some slates:
http://ruthlessculture.com/2013/02/18/my-draft-hugo-ballot-2013/ ”
That’s one person talking about the things he is voting for. He says he thinks the things on the list are good, he doesn’t represent them as the choice of a movement. You see the difference, right? In a US election, you get to vote for a whole list of office holders, from president to school board. If I put up a blog saying who I am voting for, that’s just my opinion. If the Republican party says “these are the Republican candidates”, that is a slate.
“perhaps you can suggest improvements to the SP process to Kate Paulk who has volunteered to be in charge of SP4.”
Ha! When she put up her post talking about Sad Puppies 4, I very politely commented to ask what the purpose of drawing up a slate was. My comment (and a few follow-up comments) are still ‘awaiting moderation’
“I think none of the above. I wait for evidence before drawing conclusions.”
You’re hedging your bets. You don’t want to say a large degree of correlation would be a bad thing, because that’s what the results would show. But you don’t want to say it would be fine, because that’s a harder line to defend 🙂
Cards on the table. I think the analysis will show a high degree of correlation. Do you understand why people think block votes are bad – regardless of the works the votes are for? Do you agree that block votes are bad?
Thank you for telling me what I think. Without you, how would I ever know?
Earlier in this thread, I defended you against accusations of being a mindless fool. I damn well expect the same level of respect from you, or I won’t be bothered to defend you again. Telling people “This is what you really think” is offensive.
Show me evidence of bloc voting — not assertions, not inferences based on ballots you can’t possibly see — and I’ll condemn it. And no, I don’t think 60% correlation is evidence of anything. 90% will make me suspicious, but 60% is in the realm of statistical noise.
Ray,
You are conveniently ignoring that block votes occurred in the past, they simply weren’t documented. Vox Day (I’ll give you a moment to recover) performed a breakdown of past voting for finalists and the correlation of the number of votes (usually only forty to fifty) between each literary category was astonishing, enough to provide circumstantial evidence if not proof.
So again, take your sanctimony and shove it up your ass.
Ray: So “If only the Sp3’s had nominated the correct amount”?
I would like to apologize for the way in which I addressed the SP/RP white supremacists as white supremacists. It was never my intention to imply that SP/RP are ugly insane racists who hate blacks and Arabs and who are concerned more with playing with themselves and maintaining their white privilege and power built on the backs of slaves than the continuing struggles of non-whites in society, nor to suggest at any point that SP/RP sacrifice their credibility by denying feminists agency in vital matters in the mistaken impression white male cisheteronormativity comes before the well-being of gays, women and non-whites they supposedly have compassion for nor to imply at any stage that SP/RP are dink-faced shit for brains without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed did I intend that my readers should consider SP/RP as incontinent purple-fingered ass-grabbers with open runny sores who hate women and gays and are arrogant perverts who screw trees and wished Hitler had won WW II.
I am sorry if this impression has come across.
Thank you, Monty Python.
Ray:
Follow the link provided and the links from there. I think you are being unfair to that poster.
The poster’s recommendations are a “slate”. Are are the recommendations linked.
v
Angus Trim says:
kitten, that’s really disengenious. Coming over here and pretending to be open minded, then playing the usual SJB game of projection.
Well, can’t say I’ve ever claimed to be open minded. 😀
I’m not quite sure what you mean by projection there. I said what I thought about Brad’s lynch mob mentality and how responsible adults should not try to get other people fired because they happen to disagree over a fucking science fiction award. It’s hilarious and disgusting at the same time.
I also see that nobody has taken the Mamatas challenge. Maybe it’s unbeatable, then.
spacefaringkitten,
Your challenge is being ignored because both you and the challenger are disingenuous trolls. Hope that cleared it up for you.
And before you get all indignant about people pushing for Gallo’s resignation/firing, your side started it first. How many overt and subtle threats have been bandied about saying, “Be careful, or you’ll never work in this industry again”? How many times has the sentiment been echoed at Making LIght since the end of March?
And to the wider swath of SJWs, how about the recent sacking of a Nobel Prize scientist for a joke? However ill-advised that joke was, it wasn’t libelous, it didn’t insult specific peers in the scientific community and it didn’t insult the customers of the scientist’s business, all of which Ms. Gallo’s statements did.
“Show me evidence of bloc voting — not assertions, not inferences based on ballots you can’t possibly see — and I’ll condemn it. And no, I don’t think 60% correlation is evidence of anything. 90% will make me suspicious, but 60% is in the realm of statistical noise.”
The evidence – for or against – is not available until after the awards. That is when (I think) the details of the nominating ballots are released.
So are those your lines in the sand? If there are 150 nominating ballots with 60% of the nominees taken directly from the Sad Puppies slate, that is not a problem. It is only if the ballots have 90% correlation that you think it is suspicious.
How much correlation do you think there is among other ballots? Do you think you could draw up a list of nominees from last year, and find 150 ballots that all have at least 60% of that list?
Do you understand why I, and others, find it objectionable that a large number of people appear to have voted in a bloc? Do you understand why this is independent of the contents of the slate, it is the slate itself and the apparent existence of bloc voting that people object to?
Ray,
Do you really believe all the horseshit you have spread here? If it were real instead of virtual, farmers wouldn’t need fertilizer for months.
viktor, are you seriously claiming that you can’t see a difference between those nomination lists (which have some entries in common but show no signs of coordination), and Brad’s series of posts discussing Sad Puppies and announcing the Sad Puppies slate? Brad put himself, and his choices, at the head of a movement. The other people nominated stuff they liked, and told people about their nominations.
So, no pun intended, it’s not a black and white issue? Grey area trumps all?
Oh for crying out loud. I thought all of this was clear by now. When Brad produced a slate for nominating the for this year’s Hugo’s, he said “As noted earlier in the year, the SAD PUPPIES 3 list is a recommendation. Not an absolute.” He then went on to say: “If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard.” Now, if that isn’t a suggestion that anyone sympathetic to Sad Puppies should vote exactly what is on the slate, I don’t know what is. You can’t have it both ways. From what I can tell from discussion with people in the Sad Puppy camp most people took Brad’s first suggestion rather than the second and nominated for what they thought was good, based largely on the Sad Puppy slate but adding in others that they liked.
Vox of course was more direct: “What follows is the list of Hugo recommendations known as Rabid Puppies. They are my recommendations for the 2015 nominations, and I encourage those who value my opinion on matters related to science fiction and fantasy to nominate them precisely as they are.”
Vox clearly shafted Brad and Vox’s cohorts voted in lockstep to ensure that the Hugo’s were (quite legally) gamed.
Can we stop this now?
Hey kitten
Thank you for confirming for me your lack of reading comprehension.
Brad is one of the most mellow of the higher profile Puppies. He doesn’t ban trolls like you until things get overheated, or said troll goes way over the top. Just being annoying doesn’t get one banned.
He doesn’t disemvowel anyone either.
So you’re talking of a “lynch mob mentality” is like shitting on the living room carpet.
And the loudest people talking about having people lose their jobs are the SJBs. The only ones doing false reviews, trying to wreck careers, are SJBs. Take your high and mighty attitude and shove it.
No one’s taken Mamatas challenge seriously, that’s why no one’s taken it up. I noticed he hasn’t talked to Freer yet either.
Does anyone know where the “They’re all bots.” meme started? It’s obviously all over the place now, but I’m curious as to whether or not anyone has pinpointed where it originated.
Didn’t someone post a nomination count of the various works? IIRC, the variance of votes for Brad’s list was far higher than one would expect for bloc voting (something like 100+ vote difference between top and bottom), and the variance for the more, call them “establishment” works was very low.
“I think the effect of publishing a Sad Puppy slate, with five choices in each category, was to encourage block voting.”
Good. You think wrong.
1. There were 5 nominees in 3 categories, one of which was reduced to 4 due to eligibility.
2. From the original post: “If you agree with our slate below — and we suspect you might — this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard. This is YOUR award (as SF/F’s self-proclaimed “most prestigious award”) and YOU get to have a say in who is acknowledged.”
3. Also: “As noted earlier in the year, the SAD PUPPIES 3 list is a recommendation. Not an absolute.”
4. Also note the book bombs run by Larry to sell books so that people will read them before nominating. You don’t do that if you’re just wanting people to blindly pull a level.
So, fix your misunderstanding, admit and correct your error in logic, and move on.
Bleh. “Pull a lever” and 4 categories (Novel, short story, related work, fan writer).
I await with amusement the argument that Brad, Larry, and company were nefariously trying to pack the oh-so-high-profile fan writer category…
@Frank – it was over on Peter Grants blog, here: http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.ch/2015/06/anger-doubt-and-confusion-at-tor.html
Peter says that he has information from Tor employees that “[people] have even asserted that the thousands of e-mails complaining about Irene Gallo’s statement aren’t genuine, but the product of a bot-net, a manufactured wave of pseudo-indignation that has no foundation in reality.”
Who knows whether there is any truth in this or not.
If anyone understands “no foundation in reality”, it’s the editors at Tor.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by projection there. I said what I thought about Brad’s lynch mob mentality and how responsible adults should not try to get other people fired because they happen to disagree over a fucking science fiction award. It’s hilarious and disgusting at the same time.
I was very vocal in the other thread that people shouldn’t be at the spot where they have their lives ruined because of their political opinions, but I am increasingly of the opinion that the only way to get to this spot is by enforcing the rules evenly. If one side can force people like Brandon Eich and Tim Hunt out of their jobs, then the other side should feel more than justified in forcing Ms. Gallo and most of Tor’s most vocal Social Justice advocates out of their jobs.
Seriously, if you’re thinking ‘responsible adults should not try and get other people fired’, that horse is well out of the barn, and the ones that let it out were the Social Justice advocates, not the Sad Puppies.
Regarding the term ‘Social Justice Warrior’: ‘Social Justice’ has a defined meaning. It’s not completely objective, but it’s one that can be applied both positively and negatively. If I ask people on both sides whether certain political opinions are commonly held by people who advocate for or against Social Justice, I’m likely to get a lot of agreement as to the answers. It’s in the same category as other terms like ‘feminism’, ‘libertarianism’ , ‘progressivism’, and ‘conservatism’: broad ideological views with similar general principles and multiple interpretations.
‘Social Justice Warrior’ is a way of poking fun at the stereotype held by outsiders of the most strident Social Justice advocates. It’s not meant to be nice, but it does map to a reasonably agreed-upon term. If someone calls me a ‘Republicrap’, I’ll recognize it as an insult (and not a terribly accurate one), but one that I can reasonably understand. I’m much closer to being a Republican than a Democrat, and if your opinion of Republicans is negative, the insult is at least somewhat appropriate.
‘Nazi’, ‘Neo-Nazi’, and ‘Fascist’ have objective or near objective definitions, and very specific histories. If you’re using one of those to describe someone, you’d better make sure the description fits. Calling someone a Nazi that doesn’t subscribe to any of the principles of the Nazi ideology is both incredibly likely to kill any chance of them wanting to reason with you and very definitely slanderous.
@Frank,
There’s also a deleted Reddit post, allegedly by a Tor employee very hostile to the SP, that claimed the same, so it’s not just something dropped by a anonymous SP supporter to Peter Grant. I’m looking for an archive.today of it before it got taken down, but there’s some snippets quoted in follow-on comments:
Instead of acting in a way that might address this divide, we have people continually questioning the slates and organizing to change the rules. There are no rules in an echo chamber; the echo chamber is the rule, and we’ve seen that presented to us over and over again as fair play. Everything we do is taken as bad faith. It just never occurs to fanatics to stop. Viciously mangling an entertainment literature until it’s the road to end injustice, racism and patriarchy verges on insanity. Certainly the Twitter feeds of the “marginalized” read like an insane asylum.
“Alyssa Wong retweeted Flaming Pint Trota @GeekMelange 6h6 hours ago When you demand space for ideas that question another’s humanity, you’re supporting the wrong ppl & hurting those already marginalized.”
That needs an intervention more than it needs to be published. How many times have we seen a variation of that which says it’s radical to think of women as human, as if anyone doesn’t, or idiocy as if anyone supports rape? VD or no VD, those people will never shut up. Did Rachel Dolezal just need a story published? Lucky for her, she stepped down as president of the NAACP Spokane and was erased as TA from the E. Wash web site. Why was that lucky? Society acted as an intervention where her estranged family no longer could. Hopefully she has woken up. Who’s going to intervene for these nuthatches in SFF?
So we’ll have SP4 and I honestly don’t know what it will take to shake up these truly oddball SJWs.
“Cecily Kane retweeted Tauriq Moosa @tauriqmoosa Jun 14 A lot of folks get very angry at having all male panels & all white gamer panels highlighted: sorry, but it won’t change until you see it.”
“Cecily Kane retweeted Tauriq Moosa @tauriqmoosa Jun 14 Like race & Witcher, a lot of this is due to privilege blindness. Then when you point it out, it’s seen as personal attack.”
It is an attack. I know that cuz none of you morons cares about this when it comes to rap music. You’re a cult of man-hating anti-white racists, and that’s all you are.
“Shanley @shanley 2h2 hours ago .@sama STOP COMPARING RACIST TERRORISM & MURDER TO YOU & YOUR RICH WHITE FRIENDS BEING LIGHTLY CRITICIZED FOR DECADES OF RACISM AND SEXISM”
If insanity were a gold mine SJWs would be rich.
https://twitter.com/shanley/status/610565759769509889
But let’s agree that there were SF fans who were not involved in Hugo voting, and the Hugos would be better if they were. Why did they have to be brought in by voting on a slate? Why not just, “hey, you like SF, but you don’t like the Hugo winners? Did you know it is really easy to vote for your choices? All you have to do is buy a voting membership here, and you can nominate for and vote for whoever you like!”
Why a list of recommendations?
Several things here. First, because recommendations are a good thing. Brad saying ‘here are the works that you all recommended to me that I enjoyed enough to nominate for the Hugo’ is a good thing. I may not agree with all his recommendations, but I trust he thinks these are legitimately good works. If the recommendations had come from some group process, I’d be upset, because this is Brad’s blog, and because this is his blog, I trust these are works he will personally vouch for. If he is passing on a recommendation for a work that he can’t personally vouch for, he’s doing something wrong.
Second, Sad Puppies 2 was hit by a deliberate campaign to ‘No Award’ the books Larry recommended. The only way around such a destructive process is to out campaign them, which requires having an organized effort to begin with. Consider the Sad Puppies campaign the equivalent of a ‘Sit In’.
Ah, here’s the original from reddit…
“Tor employee here: We stand by her too. Legal reacted to terrorist tactics of the Puppies (who created bots and have sent thousands of threatening emails to various people in the company) and, without stopping to speak to anyone else in Tor who damn well better understood the Puppies and the broader situation, made that statement from Tom go up. What people read was a draft that hadn’t been vetted by anyone and Tom was horrified when it went public. The internal handling of this situation has been deplorable and the community should know that Tor employees are very, VERY angry at how a respected coworker was publicly dressed down in this manor.
“Our reputation is heavily damaged and both sides of the aisle have lost faith in us as a company. As for fallout within the company? Other than a lot of upset employees, loss of faith in the corporate culture, and a shiny new Social Media Policy; very little. No one is going to get fired.”
None of us care about the Mamatas challenge because none of us care about Nick Mamatas. He’s a mild nuisance, at best.
“None of us care about the Mamatas challenge because none of us care about Nick Mamatas. He’s a mild nuisance, at best.”
^That. Especially after what Mamatas tried to pull over at Jeffro’s blog. He can suck it.
Plus there’s the Wild West proverb of never trusting a mild nuisance who looks like an old prairie woman.
Maybe the CHORF’s et al got caught up in their own version of Jante Law?
1. You shall not believe that you are someone.
2. You shall not believe that you are as good as we are.
3. You shall not believe that you are any wiser than we are.
4. You shall never indulge in the conceit of imagining that you are better than we are.
5. You shall not believe that you know more than we do.
6. You shall not believe that you are more important than we are.
7. You shall not believe that you are going to amount to anything.
8. You shall not laugh at us.
9. You shall not believe that anyone cares about you.
10. You shall not believe that you can teach us anything.
Seems to fit the present narrative.
“McJulie on June 15, 2015 at 2:26 pm said:
“I don’t know if Torgersen’s insulting ‘affirmative action’ comment regarding The Water That Falls on You From Nowhere was inspired more by racism, homophobia, or a dislike of literary surrealism, but it’s not exactly evidence AGAINST racism on his part, is it?
“Similar bad-mouthing of The Lady Astronaut of Mars provides ample evidence of sexism, though.”
*
I love the reeling circular trainwreck that is feminist thought. They gin up bullshit about straight white men hating them and then talk on Twitter every single day about affirmative actioning themselves into a higher profile.
Then, when you read their words and quote them, they gin up bullshit about straight white men hating them and then talk on Twitter every single day… etc.
Once again Scalzi’s Squirrel Theory proves its worth. I love science.
Seems to fit the present narrative.
It’s really easy to fall into the narrative trap. Just because it fits the facts doesn’t mean it’s the correct explanation. Still, the ideas behind ‘Jante Law’ and zero-sum economics (the narrative that best fits the Social Justice worldview in my opinion) are close enough that there could readily be something there. Social Justice seems to be concerned with comparing what actually happened with an ideal equal outcome: “more men than women won awards in the golden age, so therefore the patriarchy must have unjustly held women back and supported men.” Jante Law seems to be also based around that ideal equal outcome; if someone sticks out as being supposedly better, it’s a failure of society.
Some Twitter crap:
“MichaelDamianThomas @michaeldthomas · 13h13 hours ago
ICYMI, the sad/rabid puppy leadership & their sycophants are *still* vile, talentless, insecure bags of shit.”
“IncogNegro @tehawesomersace · 13h13 hours ago
Honestly? That’s what I get from the Tom Doherty statement. Not just censoring Gallo, but that deep down he might agree with the Puppies.”
“IncogNegro @tehawesomersace · 13h13 hours ago
And then I know that secretly, in your heart of hearts, you might be a racist/sexist, too.”
So, nothing really new here.
Something good from File770, for a change, someone calling out Nick Mamatas’ BS:
“Michael A. Rothman on June 15, 2015 at 3:02 pm said:
Nick, you seriously have some issues. Can’t you at least TRY to be an adult and congratulate the nominees and leave out the BS? If not, you’re simply showing yourself to be someone who is duly ignorable. Then again, I suppose for most trolls, that is your goal.”
Ray…
I think that block voting (to whatever extent it occurred) is less than optimal but ultimately a non-issue going forward. (Going backward it is even more of a non-issue.) The more fans that become involved the less influence anyone’s list of recommendations will have. The extremely small number of people who voted for nominations was a very real problem. More is better. More makes it less possible to influence the final ballot, and once the final ballot is composed each work nominated is on it’s own. (I’ve no doubt that Three Body Problem will be on the top of a large percentage of Puppy ballots, despite not being on the “slate”.)
More important than that…
I think that the implication that had this not involved Brad’s so-called “slate” that a very large influx of new voters voting for novels that weren’t “arty” would have been happily welcomed… I think that that implication is absurd. In the past there were one or two or three… and howls of “no award!” followed by celebration and gloating that they interlopers were shut out.
Please admit that you know that is what happened, so we can be certain we’re all operating on the same page.
@Nathan
Thank you for the legwork. That post doesn’t just say that bots were sending out e-mails. It says that bots were sending out THREATENING e-mails, which I think is an order of magnitude worse. That being said, it’s an anonymous post, so I think it should be taken with a grain of salt. But Peter Grant seems to be saying that this is the belief of at least some of the people at Tor. I have to say that I find the whole “bot” controversy to be less offensive than Irene Gallo’s original post and subsequent non-apology, which were both much more public than the internal grumblings at Tor.
And with that I’ll repeat the question that you didn’t answer… If Sad Puppies had done everything perfectly, would you support them?
Or would you only support them if by “perfect” you mean “getting no clearly “Puppy favored” work onto the final ballot.”
What “fight” could there POSSIBLY have been over a child molester and child abuser? Perhaps some enlightened SFW could explain that one.
Then why don’t they act like it? Instead we see them come here and continually quote the party line, use the same arguments, and put forth the same basic meme.
I’m just calling them on what I’ve observed for the last week now.
I encountered “SJW” as a term in the real world, last summer, just as the term was taking off online. A young lady whom I very much doubt was a libertarian or conservative was complaining bitterly about Social Justice Warriors on Tumblr.
In fairness to the concern troll up top–the one claiming that someone had told him that this was the worst fight in fandom ever–I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, mostly because it’s exposing a massive rift in the SF&F community. It’s not about the subject matter, it’s about the brawl.
That having been said, claiming Torgerson is responsible for the nastiness is nutso. Seriously? Ask yourself who cranked the Internet Rage Machine up. Guarantee you it wasn’t the man who the other members of the ELoE call the Powder Blue Care Bear.
Civilis:
I was very vocal in the other thread that people shouldn’t be at the spot where they have their lives ruined because of their political opinions, but I am increasingly of the opinion that the only way to get to this spot is by enforcing the rules evenly. If one side can force people like Brandon Eich and Tim Hunt out of their jobs, then the other side should feel more than justified in forcing Ms. Gallo and most of Tor’s most vocal Social Justice advocates out of their jobs.
Seriously, if you’re thinking ‘responsible adults should not try and get other people fired’, that horse is well out of the barn, and the ones that let it out were the Social Justice advocates, not the Sad Puppies.
So we can do whatever irresponsibly stupid, because somebody somewhere — not anybody we’re speaking about here and nowhere near this discussion but SOMEWHERE — has done something as bad? That’s not adult logic, I’m sorry.
I hope Tor sees this outrage of overgrown babies for what it is.
Christopher M. Chupik:
None of us care about the Mamatas challenge because none of us care about Nick Mamatas. He’s a mild nuisance, at best.
Whatever he is, he has come up with a challenge which deconstructs the Puppy narrative quite elegantly in case you cannot address the simple questions. You constantly complain about message fiction winning all awards but if you’re unable to come up with a list that’s… well… interesting.
Why these works? Because these were the works we read that we liked.
No, I’m telling Tor/MacMillan that unless they fire her I’m not giving them my money anymore.
I don’t care what Vox does.
Gallo didn’t apologize for what she said, only that it upset us. She still stands by those disparaging remarks.
“Whatever he is, he has come up with a challenge which deconstructs the Puppy narrative quite elegantly”
And this is why nobody will play his game, not because of the victory you have already declared for him in this sentence, but because of the idea behind your declaration of his victory.
That idea being, that the asking of questions is more important than whatever the actual answers are. I’ve seen that kind of damaged thinking on display In lefty circles before. Some folks are even declared “Brave” for asking daring and leading questions, and the questions themselves are cited as evidence.
Actual answers are immaterial. And that’s why nobody is playing that game, neither with you nor with Nick. Actually, I did give you one, just as an example, and what do you know, it wasn’t treated as 1/20th of the answer. It was dismissed, exactly as I predicted when i said it.
Dr. Mauser:
Actually, I did give you one, just as an example, and what do you know, it wasn’t treated as 1/20th of the answer. It was dismissed, exactly as I predicted when i said it.
Well, if you have the secret curated list of awful Hugo-winners, please bring up the other 19. I’m not inclined to agree with you about them, of course, as I didn’t agree about your claim that surrealist fantasy (The Water that Falls…) has to have “an explanation of the science”, but the list would prove that you’ve at least thought your arguments through instead of just trolling the Hugos.
Welp, gotta say this: Clamps made the effort of not bringing up Emma, but brought up his usual grievance of ‘Vox did this, as he warned the people harassing him he would do if they didn’t stop.’
Self-defence is bad in Yamaworld.
It’s really interesting how the ASPs are doing the ‘say there are five lights,’ thing, and stubbornly persisting when we say “There are four lights.” Rephrasing the question doesn’t really hide the question.
Like I said, it’s like they’re reading out of a flowcharted script. It’s really boring how uncreative the ASPs have gotten.
I made an argument about last year’s Hugo winners being a sweep for Third Wave feminist ideology. Let Mamatas (or anyone) deconstruct that one if he’s such a genius. The only way you can is to conclude quotes don’t really mean what they say or reply “so what?” Any fool who’s ever been in a courtroom watching testimony understands that one runs out of coincidences real fast on the way to “guilty” verdicts. Saying “so what” and I didn’t mean what I said only works on echo chamber blogs where there are no consequences for bullshit. Those things sound differently from inside a jail cell. It’s called presenting a case. It’s not science but a preponderance of the evidence and using this thing called “judgment,” a thing SJWs don’t have at all. Trust me, when there’s money or freedom on the table suddenly all those “coincidences” would become reality real fast. If I set up a bet and brought in a neutral third party to judge where the most racist sexist quotes in SFF come from across a wide spectrum of people and disguised the race and sex of the targets, no SJW would take that bet, not unless they were fond of losing their house. That’s the problem with all these “so what” so-called dialogues: bullshit both walks and talks. Put money on the table and every SJW in SFF would be in the poor house. Put them in a court room where rules of evidence are in play and they’re in jail. SJWs are not only liars but not even convincing ones.
“I think that the implication that had this not involved Brad’s so-called “slate” that a very large influx of new voters voting for novels that weren’t “arty” would have been happily welcomed”
At last year’s Hugos, Correia’s book got about 10% of the vote, Torgersen’s story got just under 20%, and Beale’s got 6/7%.
So, best case, about 20% of existing Hugo voters self-identify as Puppies.
Estimates say up to 200 of the 2000 nominators this year are ‘new’. Let’s assume they are all Puppies.
So maybe 500 nominators this year are Puppies. Hell, let’s say 600. (Do you think it is more? Any reason for thinking so?)
If they all voted for exciting SF stories, media tie-ins, bestselling authors, not message fiction – all the things that Puppies are about, right? – but voted for the things that they liked, without any guidance from a slate, you would expect Puppy-friendly works to be about a third of the ballot. Would people have moaned about their favourites not getting on the ballot? Sure, people always do. Some people would have said “What kind of tasteless idiot would nominate dreck like X instead of the super fantastic Y?”, but they would have gotten over their grumbling and gotten on with voting. (And yeah some people would have voted X under No Award, because some people would think X is not award-worthy)
But that’s not what happened. The Puppies slates swept the nominations. Not because there are more Puppies than anyone else, but because they bloc voted. And that pisses people off.
But you say that is absurd. People don’t want any Puppy content on the ballot, that’s what they are trying to stop. The complaints about bloc voting are just a smokescreen.
But I can demonstrate that it is bloc voting that people object to. Because the rule change that is being proposed does not say “nothing from Castalia house is allowed on the ballot”. It doesn’t say “a committee of trusted SJWs must vet all nominations to block any Puppies”. It says, “this rule change will reduce the power of block voting, while allowing everyone to nominate whoever they like”. If people thought the real problem was something else, they would propose a different rule.
Ray,
The simple refutation to your point is last year’s No Award campaign against Puppy nominations, of which there were only 1 or 2 per category. Same people, same behavior, including the same slanders and lies that Entertainment Weekly had to retract. Nothing about bloc voting that year.
@Ray @Nick Actually, there’s an even simpler refutation: There are two factions, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies. The RPs, led by Vox Day, were basically told “Bloc vote.” The SPs, currently led by Torgerson, were told “Vote for what you like, here’s some stuff that’s awesome.” You want to complain, head on over to Vox Popoli. I recommend keeping the discussion on topic, they’re a little crazy over there.
Let me expand on that first bit a little. In fairness to Ray, there are people complaining about SP this year who weren’t last year, and some of those people–Martin, Flint–aren’t blathering about racist, sexist, white men. Why they’re complaining varies from “we just noticed this campaign’s existence” to “bloc voting,” but still.
However, Nick has a point. A lot of the blathering about bloc voting can be summed up as “the unwashed masses have a found a voice.” It’s also mildly obnoxious that we have people assuming the numbers before we have this year’s nominating ballots released.
60guilders, there were mixed messages. Brad said ‘vote for what you like’. He also said
“Thus, I am going to slowly compile a slate. Of books and stories (and other things, and people) for the different categories. So that hopefully deserving works and artists — who tend to be snubbed at awards season — get a chance on the final ballot. It doesn’t take a massive number of nominating votes to secure a final spot for a specific work or person. All it takes are a few dozen interested people (with Worldcon memberships) to list a given work when they nominate.”
and some readers took the message that
“The only way around such a destructive process is to out campaign them, which requires having an organized effort to begin with. Consider the Sad Puppies campaign the equivalent of a ‘Sit In’.”
ie, an organized effort to get _particular works_ on to the ballot
Besides, we can distinguish between what Brad said he wanted to see (in between talking about how Sad Puppies had to take back the awards, and here is the slate, and let’s make SJW heads explode) and what actually happened. People bloc voted for the slate. It is clear from the list of nominees.
Anyway, the people who think bloc voting is a problem are proposing a rule change to minimise the effectiveness of that tactic. I presume all the Puppies are okay with that, because they don’t think bloc voting was significant, and agree that it would be a problem if it happened?
Ray
I’m curious. What are you doing here? By now it ought to be obvious that you’re not going to get the answers you want. Nobody is going to do the legwork you want. Nobody believes what you’re selling. Nobody cares about Mamatas.
So why are you wasting your time here? You’re not a typical troll, but you’re irritating people the same way.
I can understand that there are some people now that want to start a dialogue across the aisle. If that’s what you’re doing you’re going about it all wrong. These things start with mutual respect, not going to someone else’s home and being demanding.
If you want a dialogue, go away for a few days and rethink things. Come back and treat us like you’d like to be treated.
If you’re just an intelligent troll, eventually everyone will catch on and you’ll wind up becoming a chew toy.
Have a nice day.
Trying to find out what is motivating people, and how they understand what is happening.
The legwork I want? What legwork – explaining how the slate was arrived at? Surely there is a simple answer to that question – “Brad picked the slate”, or “Brad and x and y picked the slate between them”
Beyond that, I’m curious how people feel about bloc voting, and whether they think it has anything to do with the negative reaction to Sad Puppies, or believe it is all political.
And what prompted me to post in the first place is that Brad seems to have a habit of saying ‘the other side’ are doing things, and it is bad.
The other side took over the Hugos.
The other side have constructed a narrative to which facts are secondary.
The other side are trying to destroy people’s careers.
The other side are hurtful and insulting.
There seems to be precious little reflection going on. Are these things bad in themselves, or bad because the other side is doing them? If they are bad in themselves, have I considered that I am (also) doing what I accuse other people of doing? But Brad doesn’t seem minded to think about those questions.
Two things here, Ray. Brad’s busy. You know, in the service getting ready for deployment. Your annoying questions are probably down a ways on his priorities.
The other is motivations. You do understand that this is all subjective, right? That what motivates people depends on their outlook on life.
Has it dawned on you that the realities of life that most puppies face is probably different than yours? Your questions, and in particular the ones you repeat, kind of tells me that you don’t have the “tools” {as it were} to understand what motivates the Sad Puppy movement.
Better yet, there are hundreds of us. We’re all different, and thus there are hundreds of motivations.
Sometimes one has to deal with an uncomfortable fact. You’re not going to be able to understand the other person. All you can do is learn to live and let live, as well as learn how to have a dialogue.
To be honest Angus, the realities of life that we face are the same whichever side of this we’re on. It’s how we respond to those realities that is important. But you are correct, the subjective experience of that reality will differ from person to person, let alone from Puppy to non-Puppy. And I agree completely that we need to live and let live and have a dialogue about the thing that unites us: our love of books. (I’ve been doing that a bit with Jeffro recently).
Despite what people here might think given the flames shooting around all over the place, fandom is and always has been a broad church, as GRRM says. You’d all be welcome in it. The problem has always been the way that you arrived. Everything else is just fluff.
“You do understand that this is all subjective, right? That what motivates people depends on their outlook on life.”
But Brad says
“what happens is that disinterested third parties — not for your narrative, and not against your narrative — ask the question, “What’s it all about?”
They will begin to curiously parse through your story and your rhetoric, seeking the bedrock of your statements. And if there’s no “there” there, the third party is going to conclude that you’re mistaken, deluded, dishonest, or some combination thereof.”
Is there a bedrock of facts that we can agree on, or is it subjectivity all the way down?
Sometimes people have to learn to live with uncomfortable facts – yes, I agree. I think “Hugo voters didn’t vote for Brad and Larry because they didn’t much like their work” is a fact, “Hugo voters voted for Ancillary Justice and Redshirts because they really liked those books” is a fact. “The evil SJWs have taken over the Hugos” is not. Is it possible to discuss that without a persecution narrative kicking in?
Ray, I don’t see an awful lot of things I would agree with in your 7:20AM post. For instance, I don’t believe there were that many Hugo voters that voted Redshirts in because they thought it was the best novel of the year. But that’s an opinion, just like your statement is actually your opinion, not a fact.
Are there any facts in this before we get to bedrock? Not many realistically. That the Haydens, Moshe Feder and company have spewed bigoted bile in our direction for quite some time is a fact, but that they’re evil really isn’t. Maybe they’re in a toxic echo chamber, and can’t see the real world through the fog. I don’t know.
Yes I think its possible to talk about it, and maybe your last post is a good start.
Mindless adherence to the narrative is how Brad Torgersen, married to an African-American woman, become “racist”, and how Sarah Hoyt. a gay marriage supporter, became “homophobic”.
Hey Paul, 7:18 comment.
I have to disagree with your first statement. The realities we live with aren’t necessarily the same. For instance, I’m a Vietnam Vet who was spit on in an airport the day I separated. Etc and so on. I’ve lived a blue collar life, became a decent machinist, and later went out on my own. I survived a stroke, lost nearly everything, and have bounced back a bit.
These are my realities, and they color how I see life. I somehow doubt your life experiences are the same. Part of my point is that everyone has had different lifetime experiences, and these experiences color the lenses we see out of.
Until people understand that other folks, real people you understand, have these different experiences and see life through different colored lenses, they won’t be able to have a dialogue.
When GRRM addresses Brad, he addresses Brad from his own viewpoint. He cannot see Brad’s viewpoint, so he blows it off, and projects his own. Unless GRRM can open his mind a bit, there’s not going to be any dialogue with him.
Life in the twenty-first century is far more diverse than most people seem to understand. Most people’s vision is way to narrow.
“For instance, I don’t believe there were that many Hugo voters that voted Redshirts in because they thought it was the best novel of the year.”
Let’s start with that then.
My reasons for thinking Hugo voters voted for Redshirts because they really liked it
1 – The book is a bestseller, won other awards, and was optioned as a TV series. So quite a lot of people like it
2 – It is aimed at people who grew up watching Star Trek, which is a large proportion of the Hugo membership
3 – Hugo nominations and voting is by secret ballot, so there is no reason to think voters were not expressing their true opinions
4 – The voting and counting process is open. I haven’t seen any suggestions that the votes were tampered with before counting.
So – lots of people like the book. It appeals to SF fans. The vote was secret ballot. No reason to believe vote was rigged. I didn’t much like the book, but the facts lead me to believe that it won because people liked it and voted for it.
Why do you think it won for other reasons? What are the facts in support of this contention?
Say, Chris C, mind checking your email, please? I asked a question =) Thanks.
@Angus – we’re saying the same thing, maybe I didn’t say it so well. The subjective experience of reality differs massively from person to person. And of course we are built from our experiences (or we make stories up about them, at any rate) and respond to people using the story that we’ve told ourselves.
And so indeed “Life in the twenty-first century is far more diverse than most people seem to understand. Most people’s vision is way to narrow.” So what are we all arguing about?
(Well, I’m arguing about the way the Puppies arrived, the slate. As I said, nothing really matters apart from that.)
Hey Ray
Just my opinions:
1, The best seller lists can be gamed, and there are a lot of stories that they have been. TV programs are not always a good indicator of quality
2.I grew up watching Star Trek, I think Redshirts sucked and remember wishing I could have my money back
3. Remember some of the discussions about secret slates? This is one of the books that was pointed out about that
4. We agree here. I don’t think the Worldcon folks would do anything crooked
5.And we disagree on the result. I believe it was likely gamed to start with. I believe there was a “slate” vote even in the final Hugo vote, and Redshirts one. We disagree on this one. As far as I’m concerned the quality of the book stands for itself, that’s why I disagree.
Facts? I don’t really recognize many facts here. Even #4 where we agree there really isn’t any facts.
I will also tell you that I don’t care that Redshirts and Scalzi have a Hugo to their history. Past is past, my concern is now and in the future. I’d like to see the Hugos really represent the best of SF&F again. I don’t think it has for several years.
I think good stories have always been left out. But I really think things are screwed up now.
Just my opinions. No facts on the ground.
Hey Paul
I can see your point, though I disagree on the slates. I don’t think the point could have been made any other way.
I think the point has been made now. So how do we avoid confrontations next year? SP4 is probably going to happen. How can things be arranged so that there isn’t so much in the way of hard feelings next year? Is there even an answer for that?
@Angus – For me (and I can only answer for me) SP4 will work if Kate has an open thread asking for recommendations for Hugo nominations. People have done that for years: it’s how books get noticed. It won’t work if she then produces a slate from it.
1. Do you have any evidence that Redshirts did not sell very well? I’m not talking about appearing on the NYT best seller list, but high sales figures. I’m not suggesting the TV deal is a mark of quality, it is supplementary evidence for the book being popular. Scalzi claims 79k sales across all formats in just over 6 months. Is he lying? Do you have a source with different figures? Do you have a source with figures that show it isn’t really a best seller? The Amazon sales rank seems to be healthy.
2. You didn’t like it. I get that, which is why I didn’t use you liking it as evidence. It was aimed at a group well-represented in Worldcon was my point.
3. Where is the evidence that there was a secret slate with Redshirts on it? Who organised this secret slate? How were the contents of this slate communicated to the voting Worldcon members? Why did they vote for this secret slate? Were they compelled somehow? How?
4. Hooray!
Really, your argument boils down to, “I didn’t like it so it couldn’t have been popular”. I point to facts, you invoke a narrative.
Ray,
If Redshirts had been written by a relatively unknown midlister, do you think it would have been noticed and nominated? Do you think it would have been noticed if it had been self published?
Scalzi’s popularity and presence as a blogger and previous winner had little to no effect on Redshirts being nominated or winning?
Plenty of SFF best sellers have been optioned or turned into successful franchises. Twilight, Hunger Games. Yet those books have rarely been nominated. When they have been nominated, they’ve rarely won, and win they do win (As Rowling did in 2001), there apparently was booing.
Saladin Ahmed does not have the web presence Scalzi does. He did not have a previously nominated novel, and his book got nowhere near the press support or publisher support that Redshirts did. IMO Throne of the Crescent Moon was the better book; from character to worldbuilding, it beats Redshirts across the board. But Redshirts still won, and Throne came in 5th…because Scalzi wrote a better story? I’m not buying that argument…sorry.
“If Redshirts had been written by a relatively unknown midlister, do you think it would have been noticed and nominated?”
That’s a different argument. First, do you agree that Redshirts – the one in our timeline, written by the already successful John Scalzi – won because people genuinely liked it and voted for it?
I’ll happily address your hypothetical in a minute, but there’s not much point in discussing an alternate universe if we can’t agree what happened in this one.
Hi Ray
1. I don’t have any facts to dispute what you’re saying about sales figures, and don’t care. I’m not sure what your point is here.
3. I already told you that was an opinion. Opinions don’t necessarily have accountable facts to back them up, that’s why they’re opinions
Your final point is projection. And I have to point out that if I mention my argument is opinion, then that’s opinion, not narrative. Narrative is usually represented as fact, without anything to back it up.
Your comment approaches getting personal, which is one way to derail a conversation and get a fight started. I don’t think that’s your intention.
There’s a difference between narrative and opinion. I stated an opinion.
Ray’s argument makes no sense considering that 1) We Puppies are the ones who got Jim Butcher on the ballot; but prior to that was never nominated nor considered. Similarly, Kevin J. Anderson is a very prolific and popular author as well, but prior to the Puppies hasn’t been on the Hugos.
Double-standard argument, as here Ray is using the argument that Redshirts was popular and sold well as it’s reason for ending up on the Hugo ballot prior, but put that up against Butcher’s Dresden Files… that argument is suddenly no longer true, but rather ‘it’s not award worthy’ as the ASPs have been coming here and telling us.
Angus, you said earlier, “Sometimes one has to deal with an uncomfortable fact”
I presented something that I’m pretty sure is a fact, “Redshirts won the Hugo because a lot of people liked it and voted for it”. This is a statement that is either true or false. I presented evidence that points to it being true.
You appear to be dealing with an uncomfortable fact by denying its reality.
@Shadowdancer – not a double argument at all. Ray is saying that Redshirts was worthy in Worldcon fandom (Worldcon fandom being the group that votes on the Hugos). Jim Butcher: not thought to be so worthy. Kevin Anderson neither. Clearly you disagree, but that doesn’t make it a double-standard.
My argument is that it won because people liked it, and voted for it. The fact that it was popular and sold well is evidence for people liking it. The fact that no-one has put forward a serious claim that the results were rigged is evidence that people voted for it. If you think Redshirts won some other way… How? What is your evidence?
Butcher has been nominated for a Hugo before. Kevin J Anderson is a hack (sorry, but I’ll probably never forgive him for what he did to Dune)
There was more to Ray’s argument than that Redshirts was a bestseller, btw.
Ray, I think you’re confused about the difference between fact and opinion. We’re agreed that enough people voted for Redshirts and won a Hugo. That’s not just a mutual opinion, you’re right its a fact.
That a lot of people voted for it because they liked it and believed it Hugo worthy is an opinion. We know that there’s been collusion in the past to get things on the ballot because GRRM, Scalzi, and Pournelle all have stated recently that’s true. Others have too, but I don’t recall names right now.
I believe because of my view {my subjective view, granted} that the book is its own evidence it isn’t Hugo worthy. Your mileage apparently varies.
If you continue projecting in our conversation, its over. I get you think you’re right, but we simply disagree. You think something is a fact. I think its opinion.
In and of itself, that disagreement isn’t fatal to the conversation. Your accusing me of evading an uncomfortable fact over something so small can be here real shortly.
Ray,
” won because people genuinely liked it and voted for it?”
Do I think it won because the voters liked it and voted for it because it was the best story of the year? No.
Do I think it won because it was written by a writer with previous nominations and wins who was familiar to the small group of Hugo voters, and was put out by a publishing house that sank a lot of time and money into making it as visible as they could so when the casual SFF fan was voting, they knew it better than some of the other nominations? Yes.
Was it the best story of 2012 IMO. No. Crescent Throne was.
There was an argument put out on file770 by a poster who felt that the Hugo nominators were to insular in their reading and nominating, that it was done on purpose, just that as readers they fell into a routine of who they read, and as a result who they nominated. That they have a group of favorite writers they read, and that it takes a really great/breakout/popular story for them to nominate something outside of their circle of interest, Looking at the voting trends from 2005 on, I can buy into that argument a lot better than I can some cabal of CHORF’s manipulating things behind the scenes, although at this point I’m more than ready to accept both things going on.
So are you arguing that because you don’t consider it worthy, we shouldn’t have?
I thought anyone who paid the fee is allowed to nominate whatever they thought was worthy?
Paul @ 8:47
Kate strikes me as a person that is real thoughtful. I’m sure she’s already aware of many of the concerns, and SP4 will be handled differently than the previous SP’s
The question is, Angus, are the Antis going to actually be helpful and make suggestions as to avoid what they think may be pitfalls, or are they going to dismiss us and then run for the media with the usual lies and libel like they did in all previous SPs?
Oh Snowcrash, you’re the LAST person to tell me to consider all parts of an argument. You ignored the ones we made whenever it was inconvenient for you, especially here. You have no call to be the moderate sounding voice nor have the moral standing to chide me, you two faced hypocritical little dung beetle.
not a double argument at all. Ray is saying that Redshirts was worthy in Worldcon fandom (Worldcon fandom being the group that votes on the Hugos). Jim Butcher: not thought to be so worthy. Kevin Anderson neither. Clearly you disagree, but that doesn’t make it a double-standard.
Why is the Scalzi fan heavy Worldcon Fandom that nominated Redshirts considered worthy of choosing a Hugo winner, but this years Butcher fan heavy Worldcon Fandom preemptively disqualified from being worthy of choosing this years winner? (As for the record, I actually liked Redshirts more than the Butcher works I’ve read, but in no way was it a great book, much less the greatest book of the year.)
You can’t separate the people that voted because they seriously liked the books from people that
voted because they recognized the name on the ballot (or whatever other reason people have for voting). Likewise, you can’t separate the people that vote in real world elections because they understand the issues and studied the candidates from those that vote for a political party or because they like the candidate’s wife’s hair.
Hugo nominations and voting is by secret ballot, so there is no reason to think voters were not expressing their true opinions
Were this years Hugo nominations not done by secret ballot?
Oh, look! Alexandra Erin is back! Clamps will be happy, at least.
Ray and Snowcrash proves that they have double standards at work again.
They’re busy attributing a host of various things – intent, not intent but result, intent again, goal, slate, etc, a huge chunk of which is a massive complaint of ‘it doesn’t matter what you Puppies intended, what matters is the results of what you ‘did’, then run to Brad’s words, dissect intent and use them to crucify him and the Puppies.
In other words, ‘we Puppies’ are at fault for the misunderstanding by the ASPs.
The thing I did with the quote GRRM said is exactly what they do to us. Sure, his supposed friend may have been talking about the sheer amount of reaction Sad Puppies got versus Breendoggle, but another interpretation is that Sad Puppies, by dint of reaction, is considered WORSE than Breendoggle, and since GRRM is laying the fault of that at Brad’s door, with the direct accusation, it is strongly implied that we’re worse than pedophiles.
In much the same way that Irene Gallo used weasel words and specific terms to bring about a very visceral reaction. So I used her tactic to highlight how, if it is used against them, the ASPs will be upset.
Notably, the ASPs decided to jump all over that, over here and on TL Knighton’s blog. “You misread / misunderstand badly.” Out come the defensive talks. Out come the ‘overreacting’ and ‘thinking ill’ of the opponent. “It’s your fault for misreading / misunderstanding.”
The only difference is, this was a Puppy talking about an ASP. Thus, at no point is an ASP responsible for what they say, while they hold us responsible for everything, including not doing things to the satisfaction of the ASPs.
Why, pray tell, are we supposed to do things to the satisfaction of people who haven’t participated in the discussions PRIOR to this? None of the ASPs came over to helpfully point out flaws when the discussions were going on during Brad collecting the suggestions for the SP3 list, but now the ASPs are complaining nonstop about the endless list of ways ‘it’s wrong.’
Since the ASPs currently present have made no pretense of being here under honest terms, ‘or being open-minded’, but are here to continue what Snowcrash started in previous posts, make the same demands he did, claim ‘they just want us to come clean’ – in other words, hector us further with their little con game, I ran one of my own on them. Decidedly minor, compared to Vox’s traps, but one I learned doing tabletop games twenty years ago.
You’ll note that some on my side point out where I misread, so we are quite capable of calling out on mistakes. Quite fair, don’t you think? compared to the ASPs.
Further, when they cite things that support their argument, and when we point out the same is true for our side, they protest, claim it is different somehow, and hilariously, Snowcrash, he of the ‘I will only take away what I want to to use against you Puppies’ goal, is telling me to consider the other points and arguments made by his fellow ASPs.
I deliberately did this, to highlight your reactions to the neutral viewers here.
You see, there will be a point when the people whose niceness you are abusing will have enough and hoist the black flag, and stop being nice. I haven’t reached that point, but I should note that we on the Puppy side are getting very tired of this unmitigated hypocrisy and sophistry on the part of the ASPs.
*smile* Thanks for playing, Ray, Mark, Spacefaringkitten, Snowcrash. You ran my maze as predicted.
Hey Chris, Clampsy’s back.
@Civilis – I wouldn’t question the assessment of Redshirts around here. In my view it wasn’t a Hugo-class book. I really can’t speak for anyone else though. Everyone has their own opinion. I thought “Among Others” *was* Hugo-worthy, and to an extent it is as much a love-letter to fandom as Redshirts is.
But I can’t stress enough that (for me – and I think most others given the straw poll that took place on 770 a couple of days ago) the issue is not so much to do with whether a book is Hugo-worthy or not (which is always going to be subjective), but how the book ended up on the ballot.
I know I’m repeating myself, but the slate was the problem, not the books you like.
And so the Clamps/Yama/Alauda cycle starts anew. It’s all a big circle, isn’t it?
Shadowdancer at 9:52
I think that it depends on the individual. Paul might be positive. I think he can be reasonable, and keep some of the more negative thoughts he has about us to himself. I think we could have a conversation with him.
Guys like snowcrash and Ray? No. At best they’re too immature.
The heavy weights like GRRM, Eric Flint, and David Gerrold? No. In their case their world view is too small, and they don’t have the capacity to see another side to an argument. They all see our side at fault and are pretending {unsuccessfully} to be neutral.
@Shadowdancer – “but another interpretation is that Sad Puppies, by dint of reaction, is considered WORSE than Breendoggle, and since GRRM is laying the fault of that at Brad’s door, with the direct accusation, it is strongly implied that we’re worse than pedophiles.”
Whilst I’m happy debating the reasons why we got into this mess (and how we might get out of it) I’m not happy to let this sort of thing go.
Of *course* both GRRM and his friend meant that the furore is bigger than anything else we’ve seen before. Any other interpretation is simply malicious.
“how the book ended up on the ballot”
And how did Redshirts end up on the ballot? Was it a spontaneous outpouring of support for what many admit wasn’t a Hugo-worthy book?
Man, we don’t get any good trolls any more.
Well, that played well after your post about me, Angus. Sorry ….
@shadowdancer – and so it goes. If you’re up for an actual conversation (in the way that Angus and Jeffro seem to be) then I’ll be happy to have one. At some point we’re going to have to.
Malicious, you say? Gee, lots of skim until offended there. I said I did that deliberately, using the same methods used against us Puppies on a regular basis.
Malicious interpretation of our acts, our reasons, our thoughts, our goals, our aims have been constant for months, and pointing out that the same could be done of GRRM’s ‘friend’ there, you bristle?
*smile*
So, why aren’t we getting some of that consideration in turn, hm?
Shadowdancer,
Your explanation above is why began my reply to Ray earlier with, “fuck you”. I am tired of being civil with disingenuous, mealy-mouthed weasels. Within a paragraph, you can read the familiar SJW tactics. “So you are saying”, “What I think you mean”, “Your interpretation is”. Larry and Vox have both spelled out the SJW modus operandi and I am tired of playing along. If you come and want an honest debate, everyone here (and at Larry’s site and yes, Vox’s as well) will be civil. Otherwise, we are tired of the bullshit. Snowcrash and Ray are pure trolls and as such need to be doused with verbal gasoline and fire.
@Christopher – Yes, although I wouldn’t have nominated it. Now I wouldn’t completely disagree with Eric (above) who posits that part of the reason it ended up being nominated was that both Tor and Scalzi made a good job of publicising it to the people who nominate and vote. Also that there was a lot of goodwill towards Scalzi in Worldcon fandom that year. Exposure by those methods happen all the time.
But I genuinely think that, once it was lodged in people’s minds, they voted for it as their favourite of the year.
I’ve spent months now trying to fathom out why anyone would think that there was a conspiracy at work, and a cabal that ensures books get nominated when there clearly isn’t. If what is meant by “conspiracy” is that some books are well publicised, then I understand what is being said. The issue is then how to ensure that the sort of books you like can get that sort of publicity.
@shadowdancer – I know we’re not talking, but no skim. I read what you said. And now I’m not going to converse with you again until you decide to be civil.
Of *course* both GRRM and his friend meant that the furore is bigger than anything else we’ve seen before. Any other interpretation is simply malicious.
But why is the fury on both sides so built up this time? (rhetorical question) I know why the Sad Puppies are angry; they believe they’ve been basically kicked out of fandom (and Vox Day and company are beyond angry because he was kicked out of SFWA). What is the anti-Puppies side fearing if the Sad Puppies win?
And how did Redshirts end up on the ballot? Was it a spontaneous outpouring of support for what many admit wasn’t a Hugo-worthy book?
And how did ‘If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love?’ end up on the ballot? And end up winning a Nebula?
I wouldn’t question the assessment of Redshirts around here.
I’ve said it before. You must really think we punish heretics around here.
@Larry – Vox isn’t worth discussing. He is an arse, albeit one who is being rather effective at the moment. I do think there is a difference between the two Puppy factions. I couldn’t have this conversation over on Vox Popoli.
We never said it was a conspiracy. Nice try, though.
Add Paul and Larry Luftwaffe to the trolls to be burned list. Do either of you honestly believe you convince anyone here of anything? Aside from the fact that you are both raging assholes?
Luftwaffe Clamps has been shot down.
@Civilis – i think the furore has been reignited by Vox who has sat on the FB post by Gallo for a month and then released it when it could have most effect. That’s not the actions of someone who wants to change things. It’s the actions of someone who wants to burn things to the ground. He’s not interested in SF. He’s just interested in his culture wars.
Having been in fandom for four decades, I take that personally.
Thank you, Brad. And if I am being too uncivil or rude for your blog, please let me know. I think part of the reason I become so angry so quickly is because you always manage to stay civil even when the CHORFs are being unreasonable and deliberately obtuse.
@Oldroyd
Despite what people here might think given the flames shooting around all over the place, fandom is and always has been a broad church, as GRRM says. You’d all be welcome in it. The problem has always been the way that you arrived. Everything else is just fluff.
No, the problem is, YOU think you have any say over who is allowed in. YOU think there are gatekeepers to the fandom and you want to be one of them.
You have no say over who is in the fandom, you have no say over how they got there, or what they like.
Ah well, it’s been pretty clear from the beginning that it’s only on ‘their’ terms that we’d have a ‘conversation.’ I can actually understand why they’re terrified of going over to Vox’s, and instead – pun intended – hound us here. They’d get ripped into shreds trying their rigged shell game.
@Paul – it seems rather odd to me that you’re outright offended at the possible misread, yet as I’ve noted, I named the ones openly showing their double standards. If you are indeed here to debate honestly, why are you upset at my turning the con game back on the ones who have been running theirs on us here?
If you’re here to debate honestly, I’ll focus on something you’ve been bringing up: slates
As someone mentioned in a previous thread, GRRM himself supposedly said that slates happened. Dr. Pournelle over in ATH commented that slates and campaigns for awards existed in all the years he’d been in the field; he found them rather a waste of time.
If slates are a problem, why is it a problem only ‘now’?
Somewhat unanswered is the whole concept of who seems by the ASPs metric, considered ‘Members of Worldcon.’ By Worldcon standards, we’re considered members, having paid the necessary fees in order to nominate and/or vote. Yet a common theme I’ve seen is that we are ‘not’ good enough fans because we haven’t gone to the actual venue.
Given that the ticket for attending memberships is very, very expensive, and in my case, does not factor in things like plane tickets, being able to support the Worldcon committee while being granted the privilege of voting and nominating for those who cannot attend was the compromise by Worldcon itself to invite fans to vote for the Hugos.
The fact is, we paid our 40 USD. We differ on the opinion of what is considered Hugo-worthy.
That’s all. Yet, here you have a huge coordinated effort that includes the media on the side of the antis slandering and libeling the Sad Puppies as misogynistic, racist, homophobic, neo-Nazis, cybercriminals, and with the misread that is possible, pedophiles.
Considering the list before ‘and with the…’ why do you seem so upset that a SP could misread it that way, call it ‘malicious’, considering the sheer amount of malice already displayed against us?
Do avoid the Vox Dayium argumentum if you please. It’s a little tiring.
“Do I think it won because the voters liked it and voted for it because it was the best story of the year? No.”
Are you saying the voters didn’t think it was the best story of the year, or that _you_ don’t think it was the best story of the year? If the former, do you have any evidence to support this position? I don’t think it was the best novel of the year, but I didn’t vote for it. Paul didn’t think it was that great, but I don’t think he voted for it either. Do you have any evidence that people sat down with their Hugo ballots and thought, “I liked both Redshirts and X. I think X was better. But I’m going to vote for Redshirts”?
Because without that, your argument boils down to a refusal to believe that people liked Redshirts that much.
i think the furore has been reignited by Vox who has sat on the FB post by Gallo for a month and then released it when it could have most effect. That’s not the actions of someone who wants to change things. It’s the actions of someone who wants to burn things to the ground. He’s not interested in SF. He’s just interested in his culture wars.
If you’re taking history like that as your starting point, then of course you’re going to have no idea what is going on. It’s like discussing Hiroshima as an event without covering the rest of the Pacific war all the way back to Manchuria first.
The fury has been here all this time; you’ve said so yourself when you talk about Vox reigniting it. Why is Vox so determined to burn things to the ground? Acting like things are all alone in isolation makes no sense.
You’ve also missed the half of the question I’ve been asking. Why are the anti-Sad Puppies so dedicated to their half of the argument? What has made you, Paul Oldroyd, so angry?
And how did ‘If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love?’ end up on the ballot?
Because people nominated it. Much like how stories like “One Bright Star to Guide Them” were nominated.
With the exception that “…Dinosaur…” didn’t appear on any slate (or okay, I’ll throw you a bone – any slate that can be proven to exist, unlike SP3/ RP).
“Are you saying the voters didn’t think it was the best story of the year, or that _you_ don’t think it was the best story of the year?”
I believe Australian rules give us the least hated choice of finalists, not the unanimous “best story”. I’m sure you will come up with some other form of disqualify though.
@John – “No, the problem is, YOU think you have any say over who is allowed in. YOU think there are gatekeepers to the fandom and you want to be one of them.
You have no say over who is in the fandom, you have no say over how they got there, or what they like.”
I really don’t. Yes there is a Worldcon community. Yes we’ve been around since 1939. Yes we can be a little difficult to get to know at times (which is why we try at conventions to help ease people in: it can be a bit intimidating when everyone seems to know everyone else).
But honestly we’ve been trying to attract people in and widen the community. We just don’t react well when someone comes along and crashes it with seemingly little respect. (And yes, I also know that this is what happens when different cultures collide, which is why I’m here talking.)
How do you know he ‘sat on it’?
Do you have proof? Or just your suspicions?
And so what if he did? She still said it, and she still needs to apologize for it.
Clamps, you sad, delusional, shit-bag of refuse. NO ONE here agrees with ANYTHING you have to say.
Go pull this crap on Vox Popoli if you are such a besmirched knight and prove your nobility to Vox. Stand up to your demon.
The fact that closer to 3/4 of our various responses and questions are ignored wholesale is one of the reasons why I played the trap of their own tactics against them, Civilis. It’s rather tiring.
I don’t expect Paul Oldroyd to talk to me again, actually. Pointing out the malice aimed at us is uncivilized, playing the game of the ASPs against them, ‘unfair’.
Vox played their game against them, hard. If Irene Gallo hadn’t made those remarks, realize that he wouldn’t have such a potent card to play. But she did, so it was really just a matter of when – the damage would have been the same.
“Despite what people here might think given the flames shooting around all over the place, fandom is and always has been a broad church, as GRRM says. You’d all be welcome in it. The problem has always been the way that you arrived.” Is rather ironic coming from the person that said of Vox Day “He’s just interested in his culture wars.”
Vox very demonstrably did not start the culture wars (you might not be interested in the culture wars, but the culture wars are interested in you). Either you’re being very disingenuous by starting with Vox as the aggressor, or you haven’t done the necessary research as to what actually happened. Given all the above references to the other controversies within Science Fiction (some made by you), you’re not ignorant, you’re just leaving out half the argument rather than admit the other side has a point. To those not familiar with the story: the Culture War got Vox kicked out of the Presidency of the SFWA while at the same time leaving in an admitted child abuser, so of course he has a reason to be angry. There was a lot of fuss about some things on Vox’s blog, but James May here has done an admirable job of cataloging things people said that were just as bad as what Vox said with nary a peep raised in objection. Given that the people that didn’t get censured have the opposite political opinion from Vox, it’s obvious where the bias lies. Further, it’s obvious that “you’d all be welcome in it” is false and a lie.
Brad, we need another strafing run. The (shit)bomber is back.
“I believe Australian rules give us the least hated choice of finalists, not the unanimous “best story”. ”
That’s a good point. Winners are not necessarily the books that a majority thought were ‘the best’, they may be the books that a majority thought were ‘very good’, when there was no other book that had more support.
As it happens, Redshirts was in the lead from the start, and the lead grew whenever another book was eliminated. But only a quarter of the voters said it was ‘the best’.
@Civilis – Why is Paul Oldroyd so annoyed? Well, to be honest it’s because I’ve been part of SF fandom for decades and put in a substantial amount of my time to help it work. (I chaired the ’87 Worldcon, for instance.) Many, if not most, other fans have done the same.
It appears – note “appears” – to me as if the Puppies don’t care about the tradition and culture of Worldcon and only want to vote on the Hugos. Indeed from many Puppy posts it appears that there may well be distinct antagonism towards these things. And there appears to be some sort of suggestion that there’s collusion to ensure that certain books get voted Hugos at the expense of others, without there being a shred of evidence for this (although see my post above regarding publicity).
That’s why I’m fairly annoyed. It is Vox though that send me incandescent. Which is annoying as that is precisely what he wants me to be.
Because people nominated it. Much like how stories like “One Bright Star to Guide Them” were nominated.
The willful ignorance continues. Why did people nominate something that wasn’t science fiction, much less one of the best science fiction works of all times?
*snort* That Clamps is using pro-Jewish arguments makes me laugh. When we first encountered him, he was calling us pro-genocide for being pro-Israel on Jordan179’s political discussions, then said he would love to see Iran’s streets ‘awash in autarch blood.’
It appears – note “appears” – to me as if the Puppies don’t care about the tradition and culture of Worldcon and only want to vote on the Hugos. Indeed from many Puppy posts it appears that there may well be distinct antagonism towards these things. And there appears to be some sort of suggestion that there’s collusion to ensure that certain books get voted Hugos at the expense of others, without there being a shred of evidence for this (although see my post above regarding publicity).
Ok. Second question, are the Hugo awards for Worldcon’s favorite Science Fiction, or for the best Science Fiction of the previous year? (Wikipedia says the Hugo Awards are a set of awards given annually for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year.).
@John: “I’ve held onto this since I had the screencap, which as you correctly note was made several weeks ago. As for the “sinister plotting”, I have long been in the habit of never using all of my ammunition at once, or pointing-and-shrieking for its own sake. I am a patient man and I didn’t strike back at TNH, PNH, or even John Scalzi right away either.”
That’s how I know.
@oldroyd
That’s right, we don’t care. Not one bit. Because you call your award the ‘preeminent award for ALL Science Fiction and Fantasy’.
So yes, we get to come in, and we get to vote, and we get to upset your little apple cart because the people who actually created this award wanted it to be for ALL of us. Not for your little garden club.
Now if you all do not like that, change the name of your award. Then you can continue with your little private club and everyone will be happy. The thing is, you feel that you ‘own’ Worldcon. Well you don’t. If anyone ‘owns’ it, it is the people who founded it. And as they founded it for -everyone- that means neither you, nor your little group, get to own it.
So either change the name of the award, and change the rules, or live with it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. And we’re all getting very tired of the patronizing attitude, you’re not winning any friends or arguments by adopting it.
Are we really having an argument about the term SJW being the equivalent of calling someone a neo-Nazi? The difference is that the SJW term was made to describe the group that we are against (intersectional feminists and their allies.). neo-Nazi’s is a historical movement that has absolutely nothing to do with the SP campaign at an organization level (you can point to individuals but that is true of ANY group). Misogynists and racists are also terms that have history that again have nothing to do SP campaigns at an organization level. Arguing that SJW is the same thing is laughable at best. The continued defense of Gallo’s statements and non-apology is absurd. Especially when put in the context that the people defending her were supportive of efforts to get other people fired in various industries (Mozilla CEO, Memories Pizza, Tim Hunt etc .etc.) I will repeat that the gloves are off. I am done playing the “better person”. I am not going to play by rules that the opposition refuses to play by. “Sauce for Goose is Sauce for the Gander” as the File 770ers are so apt to say in regard to Gallo. They don’t understand that Gallo is the Gander in this instance.
Ugh. All this malice from the SJBs and ASPs is pushing me toward the “Let it burn” camp.
@Oldroyd
Okay, so he did sit on it.
Now, what is wrong with that? She DID say it, and she Refuses to apologize for any of it.
I’m rather shocked she still has a job, to be honest. Do that in any other industry and you’d be out the door ASAP.
Yama, as I’ve said before, if you spent half the time on learning to improve your writing as you spend on attacking Vox and trolling, you’d be a best seller by now.
Please, get help.
@Civilis – “Further, it’s obvious that “you’d all be welcome in it” is false and a lie.” Now you see, this is the sort of conversation I didn’t want to get into.
When I said “you’d all be welcome in” I was talking about you guys, the Sad Puppies. I’m sorry, but I don’t have time or respect for Vox and his cohorts. Now, I’ve been led to believe that the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are two separate things. Is this not the case? As long as it is, no falsehood, no lie.
It appears – note “appears” – to me as if the Puppies don’t care about the tradition and culture of Worldcon
The Hugo Awards purport to represent all of Science Fiction. By doing so, of course you’re attracting science fiction fans that don’t otherwise care about Worldcon; they’re making their point because they care about Science Fiction. You (as a representative of those that care about Worldcon) could: drop any pretense that the Hugo Awards are for the best science fiction, separate the Hugo Awards from the rest of Worldcon to compartmentalize the damage, or work to make the Hugos inclusive so those that feel they are excluded from the awards don’t trash the rest of Worldcon to save Science Fiction.
Except me! Because I’m so uncivilized to have pointed out the malice attributed to us, and how it can be used against the ASPs as well! ^o^
@John – as I’ve said over on 770 there’s a case for dismissal where Gallo is concerned. I don’t think I’d have dismissed her if I’d been her boss, but it was not a clever thing to say under a post promoting a Tor product. What I wouldn’t have done is tell the world I’d disciplined her, though. Not a good move.
@John at 11.36: That post is precisely why I am annoyed. And if you don’t see why, then I guess you’re never going to get it.
When I said “you’d all be welcome in” I was talking about you guys, the Sad Puppies. I’m sorry, but I don’t have time or respect for Vox and his cohorts. Now, I’ve been led to believe that the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies are two separate things. Is this not the case? As long as it is, no falsehood, no lie.
See, I don’t agree with Vox on a lot of things, but a regime that feels comfortable kicking out Vox could one day feel comfortable kicking me out as well. It could one day feel like kicking you out. (Insert Martin Niemöller quote here). The people that kicked Vox Day out have no problem with tarring the Sad Puppies with the same brushes, and continue to do so. Furthermore, you have no idea what my views, nor the views of anyone here, are. Unless the tent is open to everyone, no questions asked, your statement is false.
@Civilis: There is no “pretence”. The Hugos are what Worldcon members think of as being the best SF of the year. Unfortunately this year (due to slate voting) this may not be the case. (It may well be what a subsection of the electorate think is the best of the year.)
“work to make the Hugos inclusive so those that feel they are excluded from the awards don’t trash the rest of Worldcon to save Science Fiction.” Now that I can work with.
As long as the anti-Puppy side insists on refuting things the Sad Puppies never said, demanding that the Puppies prove positions they never took, the conversation will go nowhere.
The guy named “Luftwaffe” is complaining about Nazis.
@Civilis – At the moment I don’t care what your views are about anything other than books. (I may have things to say about them if I got to know you.) As far as I can see you’re not a proponent of the Vox Day scorched earth programme. And so we have things in common.
Got to go now. Thanks to those of you who engaged. Not sure we got anywhere, but we at least exchanged views.
“Not sure we got anywhere, but we at least exchanged views.”
Bullshit. You stuck to your narrative. You were civil, but nothing of substance was conceded.
Boy, this has got a little complex since I had to babysit the lathe for a while.
Paul, give Shadowdancer the benefit of the doubt. She has her reasons for being a bit impatient right now, but is usually very thoughtful and well spoken.
There are a few things I’d like to take up on, but the lathe is singing to me that the latest part is done.
There’s a lot of misconceptions about Vox. I think he likes it that way. He was involved in a big kerfuffle with the leaders of SFWA a few years back, and it didn’t go well.
He apparently has said things in the past that people hold against him. But, I’ve ocassionally followed “Vox Popoli” over the last year or so, and now he seems pretty approachable. He does have some interesting views and opinions, but so what? Aren’t we supposed to be able to hold views that are different from the mainstream without censure?
It could be that it’s because he’s aware he has a larger audience these days he’s moderated his tone and the way he speaks the last few months. But its been noticeable.
Just a few notes I’ve taken the last few weeks. Vox is no longer just “one of the gang” of the Evil League of Evil”. He’s a force to be reckoned with.
If you eventually want peace in SFF, you’re going to have to find a way to deal with Vox. Talking to us and quietly coming to a peaceful coexistence with us won’t last unless you find it in yourself to talk to Vox. Oddly enough, I think you’d find him a lot more reasonable than you give him credit for.
Yep, and important questions ignored entirely.
@Shadowdancer – damn, I was so busy answering everyone else that I missed your entirely reasonable questions above. I’ll try and get back to them, but I’m travelling for the next few days without access to the internet. By the time I get a chance to write much everything might have moved on. If not, I’ll get back to you.
There is no “pretence”. The Hugos are what Worldcon members think of as being the best SF of the year. Unfortunately this year (due to slate voting) this may not be the case. (It may well be what a subsection of the electorate think is the best of the year.)
There’s a difference between “what the Worldcon members think should be the best Sci Fi of the year” and “what Science Fiction fans think should be the best sci-fi of the year” just as there is a difference between “who Texas voters think should be President of the United States” and “who American voters think should be President of the United States”. We don’t give the Presidency to the guy that wins Texas. If I held a vote for best Science Fiction at one of the ComicCons or LibertyCon, would the winner be able to claim that they were the Best SF of the year?
Further questions: How do I tell a phony Sad Puppy pseudo-Worldcon member from a ‘real’ Worldcon member? (What makes the Sad Puppies not Worldcon members?) Why is the increased number of voters at this years Worldcon merely a subsection of the electorate?
Sorry, really do have to go. But one final point. Larry says: “He’s trying to come off as moderate without actually being moderate.”
I apologise if it appears I am trying to be a moderate. I am no such thing. I am just trying to have a conversation to see if there is any possible common ground.
Thanks, Angus.
I did try talking to him civilly afterward, but got no answers, even addressing the point about slates he was mentioning before.
The main problem I think Paul would have in dealing with Vox is the same one Civilis noted above – he’s essentially looking at Hiroshima as a singular disconnected event, and is apparently unaware and uninformed about the events that surround it. Vox Populi’s readers and participants gather obscure data for fun; arguing is a chess game, and repeating disproven points will not last long there.
Paul would not survive there if he went in without informing himself about the prior history of exclusion brought about by the SFWA and the Nielsen-Haydens, or Jemisin’s behavior towards Vox, nor will he find traction for discussion if he is unwilling to try see things from their side of the argument – he doesn’t have to accept them, but try to understand? He’ll find that the Populi will be willing to chat. Fall back to the ‘expose the hypocrisy’ tactics that Snowcrash and the rest have been doing here, they will rightly mock him. That kind of stuff doesn’t fly there.
@Civilis – At the moment I don’t care what your views are about anything other than books. (I may have things to say about them if I got to know you.) As far as I can see you’re not a proponent of the Vox Day scorched earth programme. And so we have things in common.
Likewise, you haven’t admitted whether or not you’re a member of the anti-Puppy scorched Earth program, so I’ll keep my tongue civil. We can agree conceptually on “work[ing] to make the Hugos inclusive so those that feel they are excluded from the awards don’t trash the rest of Worldcon to save Science Fiction.“
@Paul okay, I just saw your reply after I posted my above comment. I retract my not getting answers, and will wait. Have a nice day.
Looks like we’ll have a breather …. off to update the stalker sticky and spewdonym list!
Regardless of anything else, I have to sincerely thank Paul for doing one thing none of the Trolls have done: he stated what his stake in the debate was. “Well, to be honest it’s because I’ve been part of SF fandom for decades and put in a substantial amount of my time to help it work. (I chaired the ’87 Worldcon, for instance.) Many, if not most, other fans have done the same.
It appears – note “appears” – to me as if the Puppies don’t care about the tradition and culture of Worldcon and only want to vote on the Hugos. Indeed from many Puppy posts it appears that there may well be distinct antagonism towards these things.”
Not being a WorldCon attendee (and seeing that less and less likely in the future), I don’t share his goals. But his goal (as imperfectly articulated by me) of a TruFan WorldCon unsullied by outside drama is at least comprehensible. Knowing that, we can have a productive discussion. It still may be that there is no compromise possible between us, but at least we can recognize that in advance.
Civilis: I agree. Thats why I actually didn’t see him as a troll like the others.
OK, here’s what I am not understanding.
I’ve been reading SFF for almost 35 years now. I’ve only ever been to a couple of SFF specific cons, and I’ve only recently begun participating in the Hugo awards and nominations.
Somehow, not only being a SFF fan, but going to, participating in, and running a con gives you more…ownership? Say? Pull? in deciding whats right an proper? Liked the previous unspoken gentlemen’s agreement about slates, is there an unspoken gentlemen’s agreement about who should and could be voting for the Hugo?
Judging by how the current “Tradition and Culture” crowd of Worldcon is reacting, and has been reacting, to the Sad Puppies efforts the past couple of years, why would any person want to be part of that?
@Civilis @Angus @Shadowdancer – I just know this post is going to be difficult to find (or at least the relevant comments are) at the end of the week when I finally get home, so I’m happy for Brad to give you my email address if you want to keep in touch (which I’d like). Also easier to answer emails when I’m on the move.
Paul, I have not attended a WorldCon. I MIGHT be able to get to next year’s depending on finances and the disposition of the (at that point in time) nearly 2 year old. The way those defending WorldCon in the form of the Hugos have been behaving, I am seriously considering whether or not it would actually be worth my time, or if they even want folk like me around. Note: In this case the ‘They’ is relatively amorphous. For a large number of people, myself included, my exposure to WorldCon is through the Hugos. It is not, for me, Vox Day tarnishing the Hugos and World Con. It is people like Irene Gallo. It is people like the Neilsen Haydens. It is people like Damien Walters at the Guardian. The list goes on and on and on. Name after name of people of varrying prominence all telling us what WorldCon should be, and that ‘should be’ doesn’t include anyone who’s outside their world view. Voices like Eric Flint and GRRM’s are very rare, but still are not encouraging to someone like me. Why? Because I’m one of the ‘types’ they screech about. A military Vet. A Christian. Someone who loves Sci Fi and Fantasy for the Story, not the message. Someone who has flat out refused to buy anything with the Hugo label on it that was published since around 1990 without a strong recommendation from someone I trusted because I had been burned so many times. I want the Hugo to MEAN something again. I want it to be a list of books I should at least look into. I want the nominees to be that. Lately it hasn’t been. Not even close. The Sad Puppy lists have become my “I need to investigate that author and maybe get some of their books.” Why maybe? Because there are a broad range of tastes covered. Not everything recommended is going to be to my tastes. I’m good with that. But the resounding ‘We don’t want your kind around here and if you touch our award we’ll burn it to the ground’ that the Anti-Puppies are doing with their scorched earth ‘no award it all!’ campaign, does not fill me with confidence that WorldCon will be any more welcoming than the Hugos which is to say, not at all.
I want WorldCon and the Hugos to stand by the door of their convention going “Oh, hey, want to come in? yeah, we’re a little odd in here, might take some getting used to, but if you like Sci Fi there’ll be something here for you. Our info guys are over that way. Oh, you’re Anime fans? (Or any other category that may not be on the programing) Well, this year we don’t have a lot of that, but let me introduce you to someone, maybe you have some suggestions to get us started, and June here may be able to point you at some things on similar topics to the shows you like…” Not necessarily that dialogue, but that KIND of thing. I’ve helped run a convention, albeit a small one (3K the last two years). Welcoming and open to new ideas. WorldCon, especially in the person of the Hugos, has not been in at least 2 decades.
Go back to Brad’s blog. Go back to Larry’s. Read the comments, gather the information. the number of “eh, most of these look good, I loved those two, but think this one is better than that one on your list so I’m nominating it instead’ and “huh, I’ll have to read those and see whta I want to nominate” and “I didn’t have time to read everything I wanted to that was eligible, so I left off X you recommended because I hadn’t gotten to it” is staggering for ANYTHING that’s supposed to be a ‘bloc vote’ or a ‘straight slate’. You have done nothing to convince me that you are actually any more sincere than Spacekitten, snowcrash, et ala who come in here to kick up a fuss and ignore 3/4ths of the facts and twist the rest until they have proven the back is white (though they have not yet been run over at the nearest Zebra crossing. It IS the logical next step.)
@Paul – don’t worry, just show up here again, I’ll find the comment when you do. You’ve a trip to worry about, focus on RL, not worry about this. We’re not unreasonable.
(Brad, have you considered contacting WordPress.com tech support and asking them to assist you in getting rid of the pest permanently? They may have technical capabilities that you don’t have as a blog owner. Just a thought.)
@ Paul
I assume your @ John was meant for me. My question to your response is what exactly annoys you about my post? That I have reached the tipping point and am willing to use the same tactics that have been used against me? I can see you are trying to be a moderate and I can understand that. I think you need to understand how you appear to people like me though. I know we all hate WW2 references but it seem apt and illustrative.
People like me see you as someone who shows up in 1945 and starts asking “why American’s are bombing Japan? “Japan has a proud and grand history with a rich culture. Complete with great traditions.” “Why are you trying to ruin that?”
The problem is you have not paid attention to the conflict. You have not taken the time to objectively study the aggression and who was the initiator. Instead you see one side getting pounded and you assume that the side doing the pounding is at fault for the entire conflict.
@ Shadowdancer
Don’t mention it, it’s all good.
A lot of the folks that want to find out about us, maybe find out if we can be talked to, seem a bit afraid of, and ignorant of who Vox is today.
The person is a bit different than the image. And I’m willing to bet the person is a bit different than what you see on the screen today.
I think the leftist in SFF, and in this case I mean all of them, not just the SJBs, have this image of Vox, much worse than the devil incarnate.
He’s smarter than most, and may have actually played the Sad Puppies as some folks contend. Maybe, but I don’t think it matters.
What does is that not recognizing his presence in this and deciding to talk to him means a conversation is going to be just talk.
On the same token, there are several on the SJB side, starting with the Torlings, that make Vox look like an angel.
I’m still not clear on why Vox sitting on Gallo’s post for a month is supposed to be relevant. She made the statement. She stood by the statement and hasn’t ever offered an actual apology for making such a statement. The _timing_ of the statement means squat! _What_ she said is what’s important.
Some people have characterized the response as out of all proportion to what she did. I contend it is NOT out of proportion. Had this been an isolated incident such a response would likely be out of proportion. But it’s simply the latest to come to light in a long, long line of such comments. Some have said Tor is now in a No-Win situation. The ONLY reason they are in this situation is because they put themselves in it to begin with. Had they addressed the issue years ago when this all started they wouldn’t be dealing with a shitstorm now. The leadership that allowed this to come to a head is as culpable as those making the statements themselves. This could/should be used the world over as an example in how _not_ to be an effective company leader.
@kamas716
Because clearly “Vox Day!”
Vox is the Stalin to Torgerson’s Roosevelt and Correia’s Churchill. He’s necessary, and he’s not calling for world revolution and the overthrow of the capitalist system right at this very moment, but let’s not pretend he’s warm and fuzzy, alright?
For those of you watching from the peanut gallery–no, I don’t think the ASPs are Nazis. However, sorry, in this film they’re the baddies.
WARNING: UNBELIEVABLY LONG COMMENT. PART 1 OF 3. SERIOUS OFFER OF BEER OR FOOD AT WORLDCON FOR FIRST SIX PEOPLE TO EMAIL ME AS APOLOGY. (Commence shouting of “Gosh darnit, Machlin.”
So. New guy here. Up front: I am from File770, I’m not an SP. I haven’t voted for the Hugos or been to Worldcon before; I’m registered to vote for them this year. This is a monstrously long comment, for which I apologize. I’ve split it into 3 parts for readability. Yeah, it’s that long. Sorry guys. Feel free to skim.
FIRST: If you’re going to Worldcon in August, and want a beer or food, google “Greg Machl…” (avoiding spambots). Send me an email with subject line “CLAIMING HUGO BEER.” I am happy to talk to anyone of any political persuasion. If I don’t make it to Worldcon, offer stands for anyone who lives in or visits the greater L.A. area. I do like talking about sci-fi and getting recs on other things to read.
SECOND: I would vote for anything by Gene Wolfe (a prominent conservative) for a Hugo in a heartbeat. Dude’s a legend and deserves one. I would vote for Winter’s Tale, by Mark Helprin for retroactive Hugo if they ever do 1983. I –think- Bill Willingham, who created FABLES, is a conservative? He’s a four-time nominee who’s never won, and totally deserves one. I’d bet money those people would get a ton of support not just from me, but from a large number of Worldcon voters.
I’m a sci-fi/comedy playwright and web series writer, and a BIG believer in putting entertainment first in my writing. My latest project was as a writer/producer for the online comedy series L.A. Beer. I say this not to promote it but in case anyone wants to watch L.A. BEER, just to confirm that it’s message-free. Five episodes, 4 to 5 mins apiece. http://labeer.tv. Other projects I’ve done: the comedy stage play BLOODY LIES, and the unpublished D&D based fantasy novel the LORDS OF PERTH, both of which I’m happy to send people.
I have some thoughts:
1) There’s a lot of opinions floating around about issues that, I’d argue, don’t pertain to Worldcon or the Hugos, so my comment is very specifically focused on Worldcon and the Hugos. Here’s a list of the Hugo-winning novels for the past ten years—I’m doing past ten years because most Sad Puppy posts agree that the message fiction problem has been going on for that long, and I’m cutting it off a year early to avoid complicating things around Sad Puppies 2.
2004: PALADIN OF SOULS, by Lois McMaster Bujold
2005: Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell, by Susannah Clarke:
2006: SPIN, by Robert Charles Wilson
2007: RAINBOW’S END, by Vernor Vinge
2008: THE YIDDISH POLICEMAN’S UNION, by Michael Chabon
2009: THE GRAVEYARD BOOK, Neil Gaiman
2010 (tie): THE WINDUP GIRL (Paolo Bacigalupi) and THE CITY AND THE CITY (China Mieville)
2011: BLACKOUT/ALL CLEAR, by Connie Willis
2012: AMONG OTHERS, by Jo Walton
2013: RED SHIRTS, by John Scalzi
So. Which of those novels are “message fiction”? What is the message of the specific novel in question? Bear in mind, this is a separate question from is the winning novel also the most popular (though Graveyard Book, Yiddish, and Jonathan Strange certainly were up there)—best is not always the most popular. See Citizen Kane. One of the key ones for me is Vernon Verge’s, as Vinge is in fact conservative. If there’s really been an effort to deny conservatives Hugos and Hugo nominations, how did Vinge win? How did Larry Correia get nominated for the John W. Campbell award? How did Brad get a Hugo nomination?
2) For record, I didn’t vote for Hugos. in 2013. Red Shirts would not have been my first choice for Best Novel (First choice: Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2312, Second choice: Throne of the Crescent Moon, unless Mira Grant’s 2013 nominee turns out to be awesome.)
But I want to come back to Angus Trim’s claim: “3. Remember some of the discussions about secret slates? This is one of the books that was pointed out about that.”
What is a secret slate? How did this secret slate work? What else was on it? And how did he/she/they get the 193 people who nominated Red Shirts to go along with it? For that matter, how did anyone know 193 votes would be enough to secure its place on the ballot?
“5. I believe it was likely gamed to start with. I believe there was a “slate” vote even in the final Hugo vote, and Redshirts one.”
Here are the Hugo vote totals from 2013: http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2013HugoStatistics.pdf
‘Slate’ refers to the process of selecting multiple choices on a ballot, so that term doesn’t fully make sense here. But set that aside. Red Shirts got 407 first-place votes, and 420 other votes from people who didn’t rank it first. There’s multiple things that are difficult here for me:
Three different claims, without any evidence:
a) That there was a “secret slate” to get Red Shirts nominated,
b) That somehow, 193 people decided to go along with this slate rather than just nominate the book they wanted to win. And that none of the 193 people genuinely wanted Red Shirts to win.
c) that there was apparently a second secret effort that somehow convinced 407 voters that year to put first, and that none of those additional people just voted for Red Shirts because they enjoyed it and thought it was the best nominee.
Okay, *you* didn’t think Red Shirts deserved the Hugo. Neither did I. (Nomination, yes; win, no.) But you’re taking a book that got a lot of good reviews and sold a lot of copies, and saying that NO ONE ELSE could’ve thought it was their first choice for Hugo-award-winner.
Red Shirts is almost genetically engineered to be popular: It’s not hard for me to believe that 407 people genuinely thought Red Shirts was the best novel of the year and voted for it. It’s the only comedy of the bunch, it’s the only one paying homage to Star Trek, it’s the fastest and easiest read of the five novels. Galaxy Quest, a similarly themed movie (comedy sci-fi, Star Trek-related) grossed sixty million at the box office, so obviously there’s an audience for comedic sci-fi. But beyond that, what you have is ‘something I didn’t like won an award, therefore, multiple secret campaigns.’
I thought Nicolas Winding Refn’s DRIVE was the best movie of 2011, far superior to THE ARTIST. But I can’t go around claiming there was a secret effort to deny Drive a nomination, or that people who voted for THE ARTIST didn’t really like it as much as other 2011 movies without evidence. I have to accept that other people genuinely liked THE ARTIST, even though I think it’s dreck, and that there were enough of them to secure a win for it. Why is this different? And, if it is different, where’s the specific evidence? 193 noisy Hugo voters can’t keep a secret. 407 sure can’t.
I think people need to seriously consider the fact that there was no secret slate, as Angus claimed, and that the 407 people who placed Red Shirts first genuinely thought it was the best of the five nominees. If not, there at least has to be *some* kind of direct evidence presented.
PART 2 OF 3 I AM QUITE SERIOUS ABOUT THE BEER OR FOOD, LOOK I EVEN MADE A GRAVATAR. THERE IS A STRANGE CHILD IN THIS PHOTO. I THINK IT MAY BE TRYING TO EAT ME.
3) “Dinosaur”
Different year. 2014: http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2014HugoStatistics.pdf
65 people nominated Dinosaur—that’s it. (Remember that you don’t need to get solo nominations; people can nominate more the one story, and there is no evidence that anyone besides Sad Puppies 2 engaged in slate voting that year). I was not aware of the story until this year, and was not a 2014 Hugo voter.
If I had to guess, some factors that probably helped it get nominated: It was available for free online from Apex magazine, and therefore easy for potential nominating voters to view (not all short sci-fi is). It’s very short, so people could quickly read it in one sitting. It would’ve stood out due to its unusual structure, making it more memorable. (As for whether it’s sci-fi/fantasy—THE PRINCESS BRIDE is a fantasy story wrapped inside a realistic framing device just like “Dinosaur” is. I am not prepared to throw THE PRINCESS BRIDE overboard or re-classify it as realistic fiction.) But it doesn’t even matter what I think—unless I’m mistaken, nobody tried to get it removed from the ballot on that basis, and the volunteer committee found no reason to disqualify any of the nominated stories.
The argument isn’t “Did ‘Dinosaur’ deserve its nomination?’ Lots of things get nominated that lots of people—and lots of Worldcon voters— don’t think deserve to; I’m not trying to convince anyone that Dinosaur is Hugo-worthy. I probably would not have placed it first, had I been voting, though I do like it.
The question is ‘Is there any evidence to support that there’s something suspicious or illegitimate about 65 Worldcon voters really liking a short story that you didn’t like?’ And to support that, you’ve got to have more than “I didn’t like this story” or “I don’t think this story is sci-fi.” Other than that, we’re left with 65 people having a different opinion than you. A single, nominated, non-winning story does not justify putting together an entire slate, or indicate anything other than 65 people have quirky taste. If ‘Dinosaur’ didn’t deserve its nom, what should’ve been nominated instead?
4) Has anyone here (besides Brad, of course) attended Worldcon before? Did anyone mistreat you while there? I‘ve never been, but if I can make the money work, I’m going this year. I look forward to meeting folk in person. See above for beer.
5) The fact that Civilis brought up Brandon Eich and Tim Hunt is revealing to me, particularly with the reference to “sides.” Important note: I didn’t call for Brandon Eich to be fired, or ever comment on the controversy around him, at all. I had to google Tim Hunt to be reminded of who he was—he lives in England. Haven’t commented on him either.
“If one side can force people like Brandon Eich and Tim Hunt out of their jobs…”
Who in Worldcon—which Hugo voters tried to get Brandon Eich or Tim Hunt fired? They have nothing to do with sci-fi. They certainly have nothing to do with WorldCon or the Hugos. Firefox is a private company, and the place Hunt taught is a British university; no member of Worldcon had the power to overrule either Firefox or whatever British place Prof. Hunt was teaching it.
This is a huge issue for me—I am almost positive GRRM has never posted about either of these two guys. I daresay a majority of Worldcon has no idea who either of them are. So how did they get into the conversation? You can’t drag in the actions of *non-World-con voters* when talking about World-con. World-con is not involved. The only Hugo-related controversy aside from SP2 I know about is Jonathan Ross being disinvited to host—not a decision Neil Gaiman agreed with, nor one I agreed with when I found out about it (a year later), but that was the volunteers’ call in (2012? 2013?) and the volunteers can decide who hosts. But even that’s a stretch to talk about, because there’s a Grand Canyon-sized leap from 20 or 30 Worldcon voters in 2012 saying ‘I don’t want this guy to host’ to people deliberately voting for books they don’t like, not voting for deserving books because of the writer’s politics, or engaging in any kind of secret slating.
This is the point at which Brad, perfectly justifiably, tells me to get my own darn blog. Part 3 of 3. WTF is wrong with me. BEER OR APPETIZERS AT WORLDCON FOR AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE.
6) To answer julieapascal’s question above, Julie, as already noted, multiple conservatives—including Gene Wolfe and Mark Helprin—will get my vote if they’re nominated (in Wolfe’s case, nominated again).
If the Sad Puppies had done things perfectly: the sad part is that Sad Puppies really, really close to doing that. That first post? A call for recommendations? No problem. “Totalled” by Kary English is a very good short story.
The problem came when Brad (and I believe Corriea, and Hoyt) whittled down the original list to 4 or 5 nominees per category, and posted that…and naming it “Sad Puppies 3” after Correia was on record pushing to get Vox nominated “to spite” people in Sad Puppies 2 was also not brilliant strategizing.
I completely believe that it was not Brad’s intent to sweep the Hugo nominations. That was a result of Vox Day and his blog readers swooping in. But once that happened, you have something that’s never been done before (slate voting) tied to Vox, a very angry guy who has publicly admitted he has a grudge against Scalzi and Tor because he lost an online debate in 2005, and a guy who is on record as saying he ‘doesn’t care about the Hugos.’
To wrap up this unspeakable novel of a comment—and thank you if you’ve read this far—I, a new Hugo voter, have a couple of issues.
One is that Sad Puppies started with two very specific claims: that books were winning Hugos not because a plurality of Worldcon voters decided it was the best of the nominees, but for reasons related to message fiction and “affirmative action” (Brad’s words).
Two, that awesome sci-fi stories by conservative-leaning writers were being denied nominations and wins not because of the story’s quality, but because of the author’s politics. This despite Mike Resnick’s record-breaking slew of noms and wins, despite Vernon Virge’s Best Novel win in 2007, despite Correia’s Campbell nomination, despite Brad’s own nomination.
For frack’s sake, people, I’VE listed more awesome conservative sci-fi writers in this post than most Puppies tend to.
When I look for evidence of either of these claims, I see a lot of stuff about unrelated flare-ups, or amazon rankings, or a blog post from some random blogger who probably isn’t even a Hugo voter saying she’s not going to read things by white men for a year (which affects me: I’m a white man, but doesn’t bother me. It’s a single random blogger. No skin off my nose), but no specific “this amazing sci-fi novel or story should’ve won.” I see people dragging in things which have NOTHING to do with the Hugos or World-Con.
When people talk about what shouldn’t have won, they cite exactly three items—RED SHIRTS, “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love,” and Chicks Dig Time Lords. Dinosaur didn’t win. Chicks Dig Time Lords was a Doctor Who book, and Dr. Who dominates the Hugos like nobody’s business. Three items over 10 (or 5, or 20) years, depending on who’s talking.
But beyond that, the claim is that Worldcon voters haven’t been picking the things they really, truly thought were the best. That there is something illegitimate about what (some) Worldcon voters were voting for, and why. So where’s the evidence for that? Where’s even a single blog post from someone saying ‘I voted for X for the Hugos. I don’t think it’s the best of the five nominees, but I think it’s important that X win.’
I identify first and foremost as a sci-fi fan, second as a playwright and screenwriter. I need audience members who come to my stuff to be entertained, which would include a lot of people here, particularly if I’m going to start making a living full-time off writing Aside from that,
Worldcon is not a war. Worldcon is supposed to be a party about sci-fi. I’ve started The Three Body Problem and it is mind-blowingly good—surprising and well-constructed, and unique—I cannot read Chinese, but the translator clearly did a hell of a job. (Then again, I’ve also started The Goblin Emperor and it’s ALSO really, really good). I haven’t read the other three novels, but am looking forward to them.
I can’t force anyone on this board to believe that people like me, people who are sci-fi fans but are not a part of culture wars, exist. Liberal, yes. Culture warrior? Frack, no. I can only tell you that (money permitting) I’ll be in Seattle and will buy the first six posters from Brad’s blog to respond either beer, a different beverage, or an appetizer on one of the Worldcon days. (Up to $65, total—best I can do). That I need audience members who appreciate entertaining sci-fi fiction without heavy-handed political messages if I’m going to have any hope of making a living. It would be in my best interest to join Sad Puppies if I saw any evidence whatsoever that there was a bias against entertaining stories–more so than non-writers on this board. If there is an anti-entertainment bias at the Hugos, it could affect my career.
I don’t see any evidence of that.
At a certain point, you’ve got to examine why there isn’t a long, specific list of Hugo winners that shouldn’t have won, and that may be uncomfortable. Why there’s no evidence of people concocting some ‘secret slate’ for Red Shirts. No evidence of Worldcon voters deliberately voting for works they themselves believe are inferior.
Because, if there isn’t, if the only issue was people liking and voting for stuff you don’t like—then there’s no reason for the Hugos to become a front on this war. If there are more people out there like me—people who don’t consider the culture war a part of their everyday lives, who just don’t think slate voting is cool or kosher—then trying to turn the Hugos into the next front on the culture war is going to alienate a lot of people, and that’s not going to get you your goal of getting more attention for deserving sci-fi writers with conservative politics, because people are going to tune out other people they think, rightly or wrongly, are behaving in a jerky way. That’s just a basic fact of life.
There are a lot of people who have a lot of interest in talking about cool, awesome sci-fi. There are not a lot of people who want to fight a culture war.
And there are people like me, people who do not yet believe that Hugos were a part of the culture wars, but if made to choose sides, we’re going to side with the Worldcon voters who are less engaged with the culture wars, and who don’t appreciate active efforts to turn Worldcon or the Hugos into the latest binary, partisan flashpoint. Worldcon voters who live overseas. Worldcon voters who do not expressly identify as politically conservative. Worldcon voters who want to talk about sci-fi without talking about politics, and who believe–rightly or wrongly–that they could do that until either two years ago or last year.
That doesn’t mean you won’t be welcome at Worldcon. It does mean you could hurt your effort to highlight existing conservative sci-fi work, and it further means there’s a certain bar of very specific Hugo-related evidence to clear with the claim of past discrimination against awesome conservative sci-fi stories and novels.
If the question that’s being posed is: Whose side am I on?, my answer is ‘I wasn’t going to choose sides unless forced, but I’ll sign up with the group of people who were not fighting a culture war.’
The sooner people re-examine the question of whether there was a culture war at Worldcon to begin with—and, if not, if Sad Puppies 3 + Rabid Puppies was possibly an overreaction—the easier it’ll be to get back to talking about awesome sci-fi like THE BOOK OF THE SUN, and FABLES, and WINTER’S TALE, and THE GOBLIN EMPEROR, and THE THREE-BODY PROBLEM, and…
Here’s a perfect example of the anti-Puppy narrative in action:
“Mark Dennehy @MarkDennehy · 6h6 hours ago
If you listen to #sadpuppies, the only good science fiction is the stuff we read 60 years ago when women and non-whites knew their place…”
Bull. Shit.
I don’t swear often here out of respect for Brad, but this is a LIE. This has no basis in what any of the Sad Puppy organizers have said. NONE. And yet this despicable lie is endlessly repeated, day after day, by people who apparently have no interest in spending a few minutes to do basic bloody research.
Greg,
When the winner of the “most prestigious award in Science Fiction” is decided by fewer people than my High School graduating class, it has a problem.
Greg,
First, too long; didn’t read. I skimmed it, but if I have time to read that I have time to read something interesting.
“If one side can force people like Brandon Eich and Tim Hunt out of their jobs…”
Who in Worldcon—which Hugo voters tried to get Brandon Eich or Tim Hunt fired? They have nothing to do with sci-fi. They certainly have nothing to do with WorldCon or the Hugos. Firefox is a private company, and the place Hunt taught is a British university; no member of Worldcon had the power to overrule either Firefox or whatever British place Prof. Hunt was teaching it.
If you’re curious, you can follow James May’s incredibly documented links between the Social Justice advocates that hounded Eich and Hunt, the Social Justice advocates that caused gamers to revolt against them in GamerGate, and the Social Justice advocates that have screamed bloody murder about Sad Puppies. If you’re not curious, you’re in the wrong spot.
None of us wanted the Culture Wars, but the Social Justice activists that fight Culture Wars didn’t give us a choice. Pretending ‘If you were a Dinosaur, My Love’ got on the Hugo Ballot and won a Nebula for any reason other than it’s deliberate pandering to the Social Justice activist message is foolishness, because it didn’t happen because of it’s writing quality and it didn’t happen because of it’s addressing classic Science Fiction or Fantasy themes. Go read Sarah Hoyt’s stories about the political witch hunts against those that don’t follow the Social Justice line. You’re not seeing it because you don’t want to see it, because you’re on the side that’s currently winning.
I’m tired and it’s late. I’ll leave with this last thought:
The first salvos against the Sad Puppies 3 campaign were in the form of a batch of news articles claiming that the campaign was run by a bunch of sexist, misogynist, racist white males. Those arguments have continued non-stop from the entire anti-Puppy side. Ms. Gallo didn’t complain about the damage the Sad Puppies were doing to Worldcon, she called us Neo-Nazis. Are those the arguments of someone not engaged in a Culture War? If you think the people that argue entirely in terms of ‘Culture War’ aren’t in favor of a Culture War, then you are delusional, or willfully blind.
Brad intentionally read through recommended works across the full spectrum of diversity to make his recommendation slate, and the results were unquestionably diverse, specifically to forestall those arguments.
@Paul Oldroyd – I understand you’re travelling and I’m not trying to get around you. I figure if you come back and read through you’ll see this.
You had said: “Yes there is a Worldcon community. Yes we’ve been around since 1939. Yes we can be a little difficult to get to know at times (which is why we try at conventions to help ease people in: it can be a bit intimidating when everyone seems to know everyone else). But honestly we’ve been trying to attract people in and widen the community.”
Please trust that we’re well aware of how strange science fiction fandom can be. Sarah Hoyt has talked at length about what it’s like to be an “Odd”. Going to a con can be incredibly intimidating, particularly if you don’t know anyone. In fact, when I was volunteer coordinator for our local con I pushed the idea that volunteering was an excellent way to get to know people and not feel so lost. My gofers tended to be made up of people who’d been volunteering for 40 years and brand new people at their first convention.
The thing is… a science fiction convention, even one not known for being left-wing *on purpose* is still not a friendly place to Christians or conservatives and the worst part of it is that the snubs aren’t even covert. I’ve sat in panels where the participants would *never* calmly explain that wiccans or homeopathy were dangerously superstitious, but they’ll say it of Christians without any apparent awareness that Christians read science fiction and are in the audience. I’ve never *noticed* panelists go on an anti-Democrat rant, but I’ve sad through more than one anti-Republican rant… when the subject is supposed to be science fiction.
My con is NOT BAD… and I want to emphasize that. And people will say what they say. I don’t even want them NOT to say it. I just want some evidence of awareness that I exist. I don’t *want* anyone to be rude to Wiccans. I have no desire at all to hold forth on the foolishness of homeopathy. I really don’t care what the furries are up to upstairs, or the bondage club. I just think that if we’re going to be inclusive that panelists and important guests and filk organizers should think twice about who is sitting in the chairs.
Because the only alternative is starting to look like, well, maybe it was my fault all along… our fault… for not being a little bit more flamboyant. For *not* talking about politics. For *not* bringing church to the con. For biting our tongues and sitting on our hands and being *polite*.
All this “OMG we’re being invaded!!!” when the invaders are long time fans, participants and staff at conventions even, some of us… sure there are new people, too… but a whole lot of us were there all along. Just feeling really invisible, and sometimes miserable, and realizing that if we came “out” we might not be welcome, since so clearly so many vocal sorts seemed to think they were speaking to an audience who think exactly just like they do.
Hi Greg
Way too long. I’m not sure I’d comment even if I read rather than skimmed. I saw my name a few times, but you’re asking too many things, things others have beat us up on, and your questions are way too long.
Sorry.
You should definitively read “Red Plenty” by Francis Spufford if you haven’t. It’s a great historical drama about the Khrushchev period. Not only did communists and their sympathisers think the planned economy would outperform a market economy – many of their ideological enemies worried that it might, too. “Red Plenty” tells the sad and sometimes wickedly funny story about why it didn’t.
Greg, I really enjoyed reading all of that. I think you’ve expressed what a lot of us are thinking. When the whole SP3 campaign is based on unsubstantiated claims, it undermines everything. I wish a Sad Puppy would just lay out all the evidence they have so that people can stop bringing up these questions and get on with talking about the books.
Sadly, I’m not going to WorldCon this year but I hope some of the commenters here take you up on your offer.
Brad writes:
‘Because Dolezal’s narrative — about who and what she was — didn’t have any facts to support it.’
I have a growing and disturbing sense that this is the whole point. We may be witnessing a whole new leftist, deliberate assault on common sense and reality here, and a final enthronement of total subjectivity as being the new and only acceptable foundation for society going forward.
“The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.””
@msmk74
Unsubstantiated claims?
Why the freakout then? Why the desperate need to characterize SP3 as ‘misogynist, racist, homophobic Neo-Nazis’? Why the smear pieces in mass media? Why the attacks? Why did Teresa Nielsen Hayden freak out a week before the Hugo Awards nomination list was ever announced?
If the accusation weren’t true, then all that had to be done to prove us wrong was to do nothing, and SP3 would never have gotten the traction it did. It would never have spread so far, gained the support it did.
I wish that the ASPs would look at that and wonder ‘why is there smoke, and why is there fire?’
Nope, instead it’s “Oh, that was just bad journalism.” “Irene Gallo wasn’t thinking.” And more excuses.
I realize that the ASPs don’t believe Larry Correia or Sarah Hoyt when they talk about the negative stance that exists against conservatives. I realize that you’d rather ignore it when Civilis talks about the discomfort s/he feels when there’s a panel ranting about Republicans instead of being about science fiction at a Sci-Fi con. I know I know, you all think they’re lying and making stuff up, but who’s waving the banner of us all being misogynistic racist homophobic Neo-Nazis because we have different tastes in books? It’s not the Puppies, pal.
I hear all about how ‘If You Were a Dinosaur’ has ‘beautiful prose’ – its shit, I’ve read it. And even setting the crap writing aside, it isn’t remotely science fiction or fantasy. It’s a woman imagining the gory revenge a ‘mini t-rex’ crush would be if he hadn’t been a mere man while he lies in a hospital bed.
A daydream.
If mere daydreams were enough to qualify as fantasy, I could write a story about me imagining what my two dead sons could have been, and by that metric it would be ‘fantasy’ and thus eligible for a Hugo.
In format and approach it’d be no different. “If only you had lived, my sons, my precious boys, what could you have brought to this world? Would you have followed your father’s footsteps and joined the military, or those of your grandsires? Would one of you have become a diplomat believing in the duty of serving his country, and the other an engineer?
Or would you have gone on into a more fantastic future than I could picture clearly?
Perhaps if you had lived, one of you might have gone into robotics, and the other into nanotech, and oh, what a team you could have made, perhaps developing technologies that would have aided us in the colonization of the Moon, Mars, mining the asteroid belt. Perhaps you might have developed a way for nanobots to perform even more precise microsurgeries, and maybe found ways to cure cancer, repair damage to the eyes, ears, or completely reattach severed body parts.
But in the tradition of our families, we smile briefly at the achievement and see you and your siblings move on to the next challenge. And I would quietly tease your father that we make cute and brilliant babies.”
And so on.
Vox Day is not a valid answer, just for the record.
@msmk74: Okay, I’m actually going to bother to engage you, because maybe, maybe, you’ll listen.
You want evidence? Fine. Head on over to Monster Hunter Nation or Mad Genius Club and trawl through the archives looking for stuff about the Hugo controversies last year and the year before, and this year. The sheer level of freak-out that happened when Correia got some stuff on the ballot that wasn’t from the usual suspects would have been enough in the eyes of most of us to prove there was something going on. That there was some kind of conspiracy was proved somewhere around the time, oh, Mrs. Correia had old friends calling her to ask if she needed retrieval from an abusive situation because of all the mud being slung.
In a lot of ways, this whole thing is very similar to GG–had the persons being accused of being jerks reacted like mature adults, the whole thing would have died. Unfortunately, they didn’t. Instead of saying, back during SP and SP2, “We didn’t realize y’all felt disenfranchised by how we’ve been doing things recently, welcome new people, nominate as thou wilt and let the best books win,” they reacted like a bunch of old money to the nouveau riche.
TL:DR: We don’t need statistical analysis; your side created all of the evidence we need that there’s shenanigans.
the usual thing then. greg asks ‘Is there any evidence to support that there’s something suspicious or illegitimate about 65 Worldcon voters really liking a short story that you didn’t like?’
and the answers are
Trawl through the archives of another site!
People were mean!
I think this story is shit!
Vox Day is not a valid answer, but I have to mention him anyway! And Teresa Nielsen Hayden, because!
Ray, if you’re not curious enough to look, we’re never going to convince you. We’re certainly not going to provide evidence that would be enough to convict in a court of law. That’s fine, because it doesn’t matter. Enough people here have joined Sad Puppies because they’ve seen with their own eyes that something is wrong with the Hugos and Science Fiction in general. They’ve shared their stories, some as readers, some as writers. If you want to ignore them and continue to poke at insignificant details, that’s fine, but you’re wasting your time and mine.
Greg, tried looking at your posts again this morning, and just way too much info. I’m unable to process it.
Two concussions while in the service. Three over the next thirty years [two martial arts related, one industrial]. Then the stroke nearly eight years ago.I have a compromised memory and can’t keep a lot of things straight at the same time.
If you’re serious about wanting answers for that, MHI has a lot of the answers in the archives. You’ll probably find some other interesting things in the archives at MGC and ACH. Good luck on your quest.
To quote Brad again
“It doesn’t matter how fervently you believe the narrative, nor how effectively you proselytize the narrative to others, if your narrative doesn’t have facts at the base of it, your narrative will crumble. Sooner, or later.”
Are you going along with a narrative you believe fervently (because some people were mean! because OMG SJW CULTURE WARS! because Vox Day! Teresa Nielsen Hayden!), or do you have facts you can produce?
Ray, do you seriously think that the evidence accumulated over three years of the Hugos being captured by an insular clique who think themselves entitled to hand awards to their friends can be given to you in a single comment?
Greg: first, by stopping at 2013 you have left out one of the SP’s horrid examples, Leckie’s Ancillary Justice, which won the Novel category in 2014. I haven’t read the book, so I won’t speak to its quality; but I do know that the campaign to give it the Hugo was based, first and foremost, on Leckie’s choice to use invented pronouns instead of the pronouns standard to English – a stylistic trick which has about as much to do with the book’s merits as SF as not using any word containing the letter E would have had. OTOH that trick is certainly congenial to the SJW claim that differences between the sexes are nothing more than a social convention.
Second: the effects of the insider clique are less obvious in the Novel category because that one is the headline – every year, it draws the largest number of ballots, and the more ballots there are in a category, the harder it is for a clique to swing it. The places where you ought to look for the clique’s influence are the short fiction awards, and the “inside baseball” awards like Best Editor and Best Related Work.
To quote Brad again
“It doesn’t matter how fervently you believe the narrative, nor how effectively you proselytize the narrative to others, if your narrative doesn’t have facts at the base of it, your narrative will crumble. Sooner, or later.”
Are you going along with a narrative you believe fervently (because some people were mean! because OMG SJW CULTURE WARS! because Vox Day! Teresa Nielsen Hayden!), or do you have facts you can produce?
We have facts, the facts don’t add up to courtroom-level proof for the specific allegation Ray demands we prove. This isn’t a courtroom; the facts I’ve seen, and referenced in this thread repeatedly, are enough to prove to me that something in the Hugos, and in Science Fiction, is broken. From the comments here, a lot of people agree with me.
Notice how Ray, in quoting Brad to attack us, proves Brad’s original point. Greg’s narrative was that we were all about the Culture Wars. Since that’s been disproved, along comes Ray to call the Culture Wars angle a distraction.
What is the best piece of evidence you have? To prove that there is something suspicious or illegitimate about less than 5% of nominators using one of their 5 slots to nominate the dinosaur story. Because the more people say the evidence is somewhere in the archives somewhere else, or the evidence is too long, the more I suspect that the evidence is “SJWs are mean!!!”
“I do know that the campaign to give [Ancillary Justice] the Hugo was based, first and foremost, on Leckie’s choice to use invented pronouns instead of the pronouns standard to English”
you know this? So you can prove it? You can point to all the people posting online that everyone should vote for AJ, first and foremost because of Leckie’s choice to use invented pronouns?
That’s a neat trick because – as you’d know if you’d read the book – Leckie didn’t use invented pronouns.
“Second: the effects of the insider clique are less obvious in the Novel category because that one is the headline – every year, it draws the largest number of ballots, and the more ballots there are in a category, the harder it is for a clique to swing it.”
Interesting, then, that two of the SP examples are novels. And Ancillary Justice was a massively popular winner, nominated by almost a quarter of the voters and getting more than twice as many first preference votes as the runner up in the final ballot
@ Civilis
Yes, the trolls are getting repetitive. Its getting to the point its hardly worth engaging them.
@ Greg
Worldcon is in Spokane, Just under 300 miles away from Seattle.
I posted the following above, in response to an earlier comment by Ray:
I know this is a troll, but the response deserves to be posted for the one Science Fiction fan left out there that is clueless about the whole thing.
The Sad Puppies campaign has brought forward a large number of Science Fiction fans that had been left out of the process for recommending the best Science Fiction works. If you think the Sad Puppies are not representative of fandom, why should we not be entitled to claim that the pre-Sad Puppies 3 voters were not representative? Is the proper response to kick them back out of the process, or to bring more people in until fandom as a whole is represented? Keep in mind that the whole Social Justice position is based on the contention that women and minorities were not represented in the process.
Evidence there is a problem is as follows:
There is a clear disconnect between the works that get nominated for the Hugo and popular preferences as told by book sales. If what wins the Hugo (supposedly the best Science Fiction) isn’t what Science Fiction fans are buying, why?
There has been a clear and deliberate campaign to block works that don’t fit the Social Justice worldview from winning the award by block voting ‘No Award’ for these books without even considering them (see Sad Puppies 2).
Works that aren’t even Science Fiction are winning both a Hugo nomination and winning the Nebula for no identifiable reason other than they fit a particular Social Justice worldview, indicating a major political bias in the process for multiple awards.
There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy for there to be something wrong.
We can add to the above list of evidence that there is a problem in Science Fiction:
There are publishers that are willing to smear their own authors with clearly false statements, and that it is considered valid to critique a work based on it’s adherence to a particular worldview rather than its quality. Calling the author racist or misogynist isn’t literary criticism.
To take this back even further, we can go all the way back to the idea that there are those that consider it more important that a Science Fiction work not limit itself to binary gender than the work be enjoyable. Who in their right mind is going to defend the idea that a popular author should be criticized for having the gall to say that the most important goal for a book should be that it be enjoyable?
“If what wins the Hugo isn’t what Science Fiction fans are buying, why?”
Because not all SF fans vote for the Hugos.
The Hugo award is voted for by members of Worldcon. There is no committee in place that investigates which eligible SF novel sold the most copies, and says “right, that’s the winner!”
But look at the two novels that are repeatedly held up as Sad puppy evidence of Something Wrong with the Hugos – Redshirts and Ancillary Justice. Both are massive bestsellers. Both have sold more than the Sad Puppies 1 and 2 nominations for the Hugo. So clearly – by your logic – they are more deserving winners.
FWIW, I liked Ancillary Justice and Ancillary Sword because I considered them well-plotted space operas with good characterization and innovative world-building, and because I liked how effectively the author portrayed a viewpoint character who simultaneously inhabited multiple bodies.
The pronoun stuff was an interesting detail, but I would have liked the novels just as much if the author had used conventional pronouns.
More perceptive readers than myself have pointed out that by portraying a Roman-style interstellar empire without gender roles, Leckie is actually arguing against a certain kind of feminism: namely, the kind that says that if women had more power in society, there would be less warfare and colonialism and all that other icky stuff.
Because not all SF fans vote for the Hugos. No duh. Obviously I need to spell things out very explicitly for you. The fact that Hugo voters are not representative of Science Fiction fans as a whole is a problem, regardless of which way the demographics are skewed. It would be a problem if virtually all the WorldCon voters were straight white males, it is a problem if virtually all the WorldCon voters are ideologically aligned with the Social Justice activists.
and the evidence for virtually all the WorldCon voters being ideologically aligned with the Social Justice activists, is that they liked Redshirts and Ancillary Justice more than you did, and 65 of them liked the dinosaur story enough to nominate it.
For what it’s worth, I actually didn’t nominate. Couldn’t- I did not have the money at the time. However, I paid my membership to vote.
While a good movie, Lego Movie didn’t fall under science fiction for me, as it was unclear how much of it was the kid imagining things as he played. In that sense I do not consider Lego Movie science fiction or fantasy in the same way I do not consider If You Were A Dinosaur SFF, thus it is not a movie I am voting for. I am leaving it off the vote.
While I won’t reveal my top vote, it isn’t Interstellar or Guardians of the Galaxy.
A strong recommendation of mine would be to not engage Clamps in his various pseudonyms in his rants any longer, as it is clear that it is pointless to discuss taste and ethics with a persistent stalker, harasser, threatener of children, women and family, a social justice bully who seeks to drive off the Internet people he does not agree with. I shall continue to document his ongoing examples of circumventing bans, cyberstalking, online harassment and threats as part of my public service to warn people about his behavior.
The other SJBs who are here with no actual interest in conversation, I have also no interest in further wasting my time on; Snowcrash and Ray being the currently most vocal. They have consistently shown that they are in fact not interested in true conversation or discussion, but are interested only in a witch hunt, given that important questions are actually avoided by them, given excuses, or ignored. I’ve exposed the double standards, which resulted only in doubling down from the trolls. This is tedious and ultimately pointless.
TL:DR: Puppy will not fetch.
A real discussion is a back and forth, with concessions to each other’s points. If a point is found to be fundamentally unproductive given the differences in the participants’ views, it is dropped as ‘agree to disagree’. Paul, for example, looks like he is willing to actually discuss, so I will engage him when he returns. If there are others who wish to engage in actual discussion like civilized adults, then I can engage them similarly as well.
Bear in mind as well that we Puppies as a group seem to hold that RL is more important than online; and that some participants live in completely different countries; Brad is currently in the Middle East; and I live in Australia; there may be other participants elsewhere too. We have access to wonderful devices which tell us what time it is in various parts of the world. This is a basic consideration.
This is my personal decision, not a decree for anyone else.
For now, good night.
This thread has been very helpful. I would like to thank all the participants for being open and [mostly] civil. I think it is safe to say we can draw these conclusions, please correct me if I am wrong.
1) Those against the Puppies hate being called names like SJW or CHORF. In deference to this, I will call them “Truefen,” as per GRRM.
2) Slates are the worst thing ever. Truefen reserve the right to define what a slate is.
3) Puppies *do* have permission from the Truefen to have discussion groups about what should be nominated for future WorldCons. I think it is safe to say on behalf of all Puppies of any stripe anywhere, thank you.
4) Using metrics such as “best selling” or “high ratings” are, in fact, valid reasons to justify a Hugo win. Presumably they can also justify a nomination. This is a welcome change as Vox Day did this very thing early on and was told repeatedly this was NOT OKAY.
5) Any Puppy that does not bring courtroom-level evidence should be questioned until they do, or can be dismissed.
6) Clamps/Yama/Larry Luftwaffe is still the biggest dick on the internet.
I think we’ve all learned something and I, for one, will be taking these lessons to heart when advocating for how SP4 should be conducted.
While a good movie, Lego Movie didn’t fall under science fiction for me, as it was unclear how much of it was the kid imagining things as he played. In that sense I do not consider Lego Movie science fiction or fantasy in the same way I do not consider If You Were A Dinosaur SFF, thus it is not a movie I am voting for. I am leaving it off the vote.
I can understand classifying Lego Movie as not Science Fiction, although personally for me it’s at least Fantasy. It’s also not unprecedented; both Toy Story and Toy Story 3 made the Best Dramatic Presentation nominations. For me, while Toy Story was a better movie (though ‘not as good as Toy Story’ is praising with faint damns), the meta-conceit behind the Lego Movie, the relationship between the Lego world and the larger real world is more interesting as a concept. Lego Movie is also not my first choice to win, but it fits the criteria established by past nominations, and meets both the ‘did I enjoy it’ and ‘did it make me think’ personal criteria.
The Dramatic Presentation Hugos (especially the Long Form ones) seem to be much more attuned to the popular zeitgeist than the other awards.
“When the winner of the “most prestigious award in Science Fiction” is decided by fewer people than my High School graduating class, it has a problem.”
This. Exactly. I went to a convention recently that had over 100,000 attendees. The “best” in the field is being determined by about 1/100th of that.
Using metrics such as “best selling” or “high ratings” are, in fact, valid reasons to justify a Hugo win
So close! Showing that a book is a best seller or has high ratings demonstrates that it is popular. If you are trying to answer the question, “why did people vote for X?”, demonstrating that X is popular gets you a lot of the way there.
Nominating or voting for something _because_ it is popular .. is just weird. Vote for the things that _you_ think are good. Not the things that Amazon tells you are selling well, or Brad thinks are good, or Scalzi thinks are good.
This. Exactly. I went to a convention recently that had over 100,000 attendees. The “best” in the field is being determined by about 1/100th of that.
A fan vote for the best in the field is being determined by less voters than the professional Academy Awards.
I went to a convention recently that had over 100,000 attendees.
And if the people who run that convention want to give out their own awards, they are free to do so.
And if the people who run that convention want to give out their own awards, they are free to do so.
From earlier in the thread: …are the Hugo awards for Worldcon’s favorite Science Fiction, or for the best Science Fiction of the previous year? (Wikipedia says the Hugo Awards are a set of awards given annually for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year.)… and The Hugo Awards purport to represent all of Science Fiction. By doing so, of course you’re attracting science fiction fans that don’t otherwise care about Worldcon; they’re making their point because they care about Science Fiction.
If I take a survey, am I going to get more accurate results from asking 1000 people or 100,000 people? (Assume I’m making an effort to get an accurate result). Which one is more likely to accurately represent Science Fiction fandom, the 1000 person small convention, or the 100,000 person large convention? If anything, the WorldCon membership is heavily over-representative of those that want to have a say in the Hugo vote, which is a massive bias in and of itself. A random 1000 person con is more likely to give you a more accurate result than WorldCon.
Seriously, if you’re trying to make a point and it’s already been covered earlier in the thread, I’m going to laugh at you.
This is relevant here:
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.ca/2015/06/the-blindness-of-ideologically-bound.html
The Hugos have been voted on by Worldcon members since they were founded. They have never been any more, or any less, than that. If you think that means they don’t accurately represent SF fandom, you’re free to pay less attention to them, or ignore them completely. Use the Goodreads awards as a guide to your reading. Or just look at sales figures – wait until someone publishes a list of the best-selling SF books of the year, and buy the books off the top of the list.
The Oscars are the most prestigious awards for movies, but I don’t take them as gospel. I don’t know what music award has the most voters, and I don’t care either.
http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/09/20/the-internet-arguing-checklist/
THE LEFT WING INTERNET ARGUING CHECKLIST
Skim until Offended
Disqualify that Opinion
Attack, Attack, Attack
Disregard Inconvenient facts
Make Shit Up
Resort to Moral Equivalency
Concern Trolling
When all else fails, Racism!
I am waiting to see the last, but I think the trolls are almost there.
The Hugos have been voted on by Worldcon members since they were founded. They have never been any more, or any less, than that.
Ray, reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it?
From above, my suggestion to Paul: You (as a representative of those that care about Worldcon) could: drop any pretense that the Hugo Awards are for the best science fiction. Since you’re admitting that the Hugos aren’t the best Science Fiction as decided by fans, and they’re merely the favorites of WorldCon attendees (and only the proper TruFan attendees), it may be a good idea to go and change, say, the Wikipedia page that says the Hugos are a set of awards given annually for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year to something more accurate. In fact, since the Hugos are merely representative of a small convention, let’s remove the page entirely. Problem solved, everyone’s happy!
Thanks for admitting that you think the Hugos aren’t the best Science Fiction, or at least, are no longer the best Science Fiction.
@Civilis: The most accurate way to come up with an award that represents all of science fiction would be to poll all SF fans, or, failing that, a statistically valid random sample of SF fans, and ask them for their favorites. I don’t see anyone volunteering to underwrite such a poll, though.
Any con, regardless of size, is going to be a non-representative sample, because no con is going to be equally attractive to all fans everywhere. For example, DragonCon has a much higher attendance than WorldCon, but DragonCon is in Atlanta every year, so I suspect that fans from the southeastern United States are disproportionately represented there.
If I take a survey, am I going to get more accurate results from asking 1000 people or 100,000 people?
Well, that depends on the survey and the people. If for example, I want answers to the question “what element comes after gold in the periodic table?” I will probably get more accurate results from asking a 1000 chemists than 100,000 random citizens.
The Hugos are given to the “best” science fiction and fantasy works and achievements from the previous year, where “best” is not some objective standard of quality laid down by Nature, but rather, “best, in the opinion of the group handing out this award, an opinion which you are free to disagree with”.
I don’t understand why adding that qualifier to “best” reveals the Hugos to be a pretense. I mean, there are thousands of men with coffee mugs that say WORLD’S BEST DAD. Are all but one of those men pretenders?
@ Seth Gordon
This is the crux of most of the issue. Your side keeps trying to have it both ways as Larry pointed out in his argument with Mr. Martin way back in April. You refuse to give up the “best of SFF” description on the Hugo while simultaneously insisting the award only represents what people at world con think. Your side has refused to be pinned down to give up one position or the other. Instead you are trying to straddle the issue and based on the logic of your last post I think I see where you are planting your flag. Your position appears to now be “It is the best of SFF because World con members are the most knowledgeable SFF fans.” Something I am not sure can be objectively measured. Which, by the only rules your side is defining as you go, is a statement that cannot be made because you could not defend the position in court.
Well, that depends on the survey and the people. If for example, I want answers to the question “what element comes after gold in the periodic table?” I will probably get more accurate results from asking a 1000 chemists than 100,000 random citizens.
So, instead of 100,000 fans versus 1,000 fans, it’s 100,000 non-fans vs 1,000 fans. So those 100,000 con-goers aren’t qualified in your eyes to be true Science Fiction fans, unlike the WorldCon TrueFen. “Hey, everybody! We’re not Science Fiction fans! Everyone go home! The privileged elite, the TrueFen, have spoken! The only people with the privilege to identify good Science Fiction from bad Science Fiction. I wish I had that ability!”
And people wonder why mainstream Science Fiction publishing is in decline?
@Josh: I don’t see this as “trying to have it both ways”. An award labelled “Best Novel”, given out by Worldcon, is of course going to recognize the opinion of that Worldcon regarding which novel is best… because, well, who else’s opinion are they going to use?
I suspect that Worldcon members are more knowledgable about SF than the average SF reader, because I would expect that anyone who cares enough about SF to have bought a Worldcon membership has read more broadly in the field than the average SF reader, and is therefore more likely to recognize truly outstanding work. But I could be wrong about that. I certainly wouldn’t claim that Worldcon voters are (or have ever been) the most knowledgeable, or that a Hugo is (or has ever been) an infallible marker of quality.
“Well, that depends on the survey and the people. If for example, I want answers to the question “what element comes after gold in the periodic table?” I will probably get more accurate results from asking a 1000 chemists than 100,000 random citizens.”
The problem with that particular example is that the question itself is not subjective.
bassmanco: Some of them jumped right to the end of the list when this started. Remember their reactions to the picture of Brad’s family?
@Civilis: If you want to label yourself as not a Science Fiction fan and me as a TruFan, that is your decision, not mine.
You are welcome to find a con with six-figure attendance and encourage the people managing that con to issue their own award (let us call it the “Megafan”), voted on by the attendees. After the Hugo and the Megafan awards have been running in parallel for a few years, we can have a discussion about which award is doing a better job at recognizing the best work in the field. (And who knows, we might end up agreeing!)
@Seth Gordon
[i] “suspect that Worldcon members are more knowledgable about SF than the average SF reader, because I would expect that anyone who cares enough about SF to have bought a Worldcon membership has read more broadly in the field than the average SF reader, and is therefore more likely to recognize truly outstanding work.”[/i]
This is a false appeal to authority. I know people who regularly attend world con and they are no more knowledgeable about SF&F than the average fan. The reality is that people go to world con not because of this imagined broad knowledge but instead to meet authors they like, or hang out with friends, or for the merchants.
Generally it comes down to meeting people and it could easily be argued that attending members of world con typically have a narrower focus of knowledge about SF&F than the average SF&F fan because they are usually attending for a specific reason. I don’t actually think that but it could easily be argued.
A better measure of knowledge of the field is how many SF&F books have you read and have in your personal library. I’m at somewhere above 20,000+ books read.
There is no objective standard against which we can measure the best SF novel of the year. Or the best song of the year. Or hamburger. Or dachshund.
Any award is going to be, “the best according to…”
This set of voters
This committee of judges
This poll of people selected using this criteria
Worldcon voters vote for what they think is the best. I don’t always agree, any more than I always agree with the Nebula judges, any more than I would always agree with a poll of 100,000 fans. (and I can guarantee that if there were such a poll, you would not agree with it all the time either)
If you are unhappy with the text of the Wikipedia page, change it!
Christopher M. Chupik, true. I guess we do have a blackout of the bingo card.
@Ray
Actually if your claim about the world con members actually choosing the best was true there would be no sad puppies at all. See because of the low key nature of the selection process and that it is done month before the con most of those 100,000 fans have no clue they can pick their favorite book and nominate it.
Instead the vast majority will vote sometime after the selection process and never realize they had a chance to nominate books. It has been a small group who know the system doing the nomination. All Sad Puppies has done is shine a light on the nomination system so that more fans are aware of how it actually works and that they can go out and nominate their favorite books and stories.
Well, unfortunately that isn’t *all* that Sad Puppies did, there’s the small matter of packing the nominations by bloc voting a slate.
So you are upset the SP were too competent in getting what they liked nominated?
Oh no, the bullies got their collective asses kicked in a fair fight. Boo hoo!
Actually that is Ray that is exactly what the SAD PUPPIES did and only what they did. They didn’t “Pack” anything and also didn’t actually vote pure “slate”/recommendation list on any category. If they had the Sad Puppy list would have done better but people actually voted for what they where interested in voting for.
Note that reality supports this view and doesn’t support your claim.
Well, unfortunately that isn’t *all* that Sad Puppies did, there’s the small matter of packing the nominations by bloc voting a slate.
Can you prove that that’s what happened? I know of no one in Sad Puppies that block voted a slate.
There is no objective standard against which we can measure the best SF novel of the year.
This is true. You’ve been incredibly disingenuous in dodging the questions being raised. What I’ve been getting at is, what value do the Hugos have? Why do books advertise that ‘they were the best Science Fiction book of 2014 as judged by WorldCon’, and not ‘they were the best Science Fiction book of 2014 as judged by DragonCon?’ If it’s just the favorites of a small Science Fiction con, just admit that the membership this year was different than last years, and get people out to vote next year.
The key point, by allowing an elitist and out-of-touch voting body claim to represent all of Science Fiction, you’re damaging Science Fiction for anyone not in tune with that elitist out-of-touch group. Either make an effort to make the group more representative of Science Fiction fans, or stop trying to represent all of Science Fiction. I’d prefer the former, as the Hugo still has people that believe it represents the best of all Science Fiction, and as such, it’s a good way to bring the best Science Fiction to fans.
@TomT: Like I said, I could be wrong. Or maybe the average SF fan has a 51% chance of distinguishing the best SF from the not-best, while the average Worldcon member has a 52% chance. In which case, an election involving 100,000 regular fans would indeed do a better job than an election involving 1,000 Worldcon members… but the election with the 100,000 regular fans hasn’t happened yet.
I hear I’m supposed to accuse someone of being a racist at this point, but today is Wednesday, and all my accusation-of-racism appointments are booked for Thursday. If you want me to accuse you of being a racist, take a number and I’ll try to fit you in tomorrow’s schedule.
Seth Gordon,
Since you appear to be a troll, I lumped you in with the rest of your tribe as they are want to do to us. Guilt by association after all.
This again?
*yawn*
This again? It hardly qualifies as bloc voting when there is a triple digit differential within the number of noms the various works get. It was something on the order of 200+ in at least one category.
Why do books advertise that ‘they were the best Science Fiction book of 2014 as judged by WorldCon’, and not ‘they were the best Science Fiction book of 2014 as judged by DragonCon?’
Does DragonCon give out book awards? If not, well, that answers your question.
I assume that publishers, rapacious capitalists that they are, will tell their audience anything about a book that might goose the book’s sales, whether that blurb says “Hugo Winner” or “Nebula Winner” or “Starred Kirkus review” or “printed on acid-free paper”. Ask them.
If “Hugo Winner” on the cover does not make you, personally, more motivated to buy a certain book, I’m not going to try to convince you that it should motivate you.
I said this in the other active thread, but the following article has a useful understanding of the dynamic at work here from a semi-detached observer:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/14/fearful-symmetry/#comments
“So you are upset the SP were too competent in getting what they liked nominated?
”
‘upset’ may be too strong – I don’t have a personal stake in Worldcons or the Hugos. I find the shortlists useful as a list of recommended reading. I find them much less useful this year because they boil down to ‘friends of Torgersen and people published by Beale’. What I’ve read of them so far run the gamut from ‘mediocre’ to ‘dire’. But I’ll get over it. And over the next couple of years the nominating rules will be changed so a minority of voters can’t dominate the shortlist in the same way. Beale will claim that’s what he planned all along, Torgersen will write something about tribes, Scalzi will continue to sell truckloads of middle-of-the-road crowdpleasers, and a big asterisk will be put beside the 2015 entry in the Hugo history books.
But I am ‘upset’, sure, that a group that was clearly a minority of Hugo voters in 2014, and didn’t grow substantially in 2015 (worldcon membership figures show it) managed to get almost all the entries on their slates nominated.
“Paul Weimer Republic retweeted Liz Bourke @hawkwing_lb 5h5 hours ago ICYMI: Sleeps With Monsters: How Do We Talk About Strong Female Characters? http://www.tor.com/2015/06/16/how-do-we-talk-about-strong-female-characters/ … via @tordotcom”
Ummm…. compulsory heterosexuality?
“Let’s talk about ‘Strong female characters.’ And ‘agency.’”
Oh, yeah… poststructuralism. Ummm… yummy. Let the performative chant begin:
“I do believe in equality, I do believe in equality, I do believe in equality…” – The Mansplainly Lion from The Wizard of Postmodernism.
@bassmanco:
/me raises right hand
I am not a troll. I am a bot.
“What I’ve been getting at is, what value do the Hugos have? Why do books advertise that ‘they were the best Science Fiction book of 2014 as judged by WorldCon’, and not ‘they were the best Science Fiction book of 2014 as judged by DragonCon?’ ”
Because _some_ readers are more likely to pick up a book if it has a Hugo winner sticker on it, just like _some_ readers are more likely to pick up a book with a blurb from Orson Scott Card, or _some_ readers are on the look-out for a glowing review from Analog. And other readers might just check the best-seller lists, and use them.
But the Hugo awards are under no obligation to be something that will boost sales. They are under no obligation to be anything other than what they are – the awards given by Worldcon members. If you find that your tastes and the tastes of Worldcon members do not coincide, don’t use them as a guide for purchases! If you think there is some other award that better matches your idea of ‘the best’ of SF, follow that instead! If you think the only useful guide would be a poll of 100,000 SF readers, conduct your poll!
And if you are right, and the Hugo votes bear no relation to the mainstream, and most SF readers won’t actually like what Hugo voters vote for – don’t worry. Because as soon as readers start _avoiding_ books with a Hugo winner sticker instead of seeking them out, publishers will stop adding that sticker. Problem solved!
Seth Gordon,
Well played. I can’t say I have agreed with anything you have said, but that made me chuckle. Thank you.
Sarah Hoyt explains why the Puppy side is actually really really really fucking sick and tired of dealing with the trolls from File 770.
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/06/17/fun-house-mirrors/
@Ray
“Scalzi will continue to sell truckloads of middle-of-the-road crowdpleasers, and a big asterisk will be put beside the 2015 entry in the Hugo history books. ”
I am going to assume you mean in the most literal and strictest sense. I think it is already becoming apparent that Scalzi has likely reached the peak of his popularity. In fact he has waged a very nasty and snarky campaign over the last several years that has alienated some of his former fans and scared away other potentials. Then we have “the contract”. I predict Scalzi is going to experience a slow decline in sales over the years due to producing less and less interesting/entertaining works. Kind of like Chris Johnson of the Tennessee Titans was a rising start RB until he got his long term contract after which he became a very mediocre player.
I don’t get the thing about homophobia. SJWs routinely say even a single crack is evidence of misogyny and homophobia. One needs repeated and obsessive quotes to make such a case, not idiocy about white privilege and gendered slurs baked into English.
On the other hand, we can easily make a case SJWs routinely indulge in flat out hate speech. Not only that, it’s fundamental to their intersectionalist ideology to light up straight white males. The big SJW lie nobody’s listening too is anyone who disagrees with an SJW is a bigot.
We don’t believe in Scalzi’s Squirrel Theory. Being a target is not being a bigot.
“Paul Weimer Republic @PrinceJvstin Jun 16 I pray that Theodore Beale is not in Rome, and not in my presence, in November. I’d hate to wind up in an Italian Jail.”
Briannu Wu and Anita Sarkeesian we need your help. How can we protect ourselves from these obnoxious threats? Whaddyou guys do… just run, or what?
Someone call Interpol!!!
“But I am ‘upset’, sure, that a group that was clearly a minority of Hugo voters in 2014, and didn’t grow substantially in 2015 (worldcon membership figures show it) managed to get almost all the entries on their slates nominated.”
That because theres a stark difference between Hugo Voters and Hugo nominators. Sure, Loncon had 10K members. 2000 of them voted on the nomination process this year. There have always been few nominators then final voters, even a cursory look at the Hugo websites would tell you that. Sad Puppies is probably about 150-200 people, very few of which I believe voted straight slate. I didn’t. Don’t know about the Rapid Puppy effect though.
But, all of this also ignores the fact that if the worldcon voting pool wasn’t already so small, the Puppies results would have not been so sweeping.
“…2000 of them voted on the nomination process this year… Sad Puppies is probably about 150-200 people”
if Sad Puppies is only 10% of the voting population (and Rabid Puppies about the same?) how did they manage to sweep the nominations, except by bloc voting?
(Note, I’m not suggesting all or even most SP voters voted the full slate. But clearly *many* of them voted *a lot* of the slate
There’s a useful illustration here
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil
Simple math would suggest Puppies of either stripe made up more than 10% of the vote. We’ll find out in August.
if Sad Puppies is only 10% of the voting population (and Rabid Puppies about the same?) how did they manage to sweep the nominations, except by bloc voting?
(Note, I’m not suggesting all or even most SP voters voted the full slate. But clearly *many* of them voted *a lot* of the slate
What’s undemocratic about that? The author is begging the question. The only thing is that people the author didn’t like won this year.
I asked Paul, and I’ll ask you: what’s your stake in this? Why are you angry enough to waste your time here?
By the way, did anyone else catch the fail in the illustration?
Anti-Democratic? Everyone vote counted. No ones vote counted more than the other, this isn’t the Locus Awards after all.
A group of people with similar tastes got together and voted for some of the same things, and that’s not democratic?
I can’t say this loudly enough, but I’ll try:
IF WORLDCON MEMBERSHIP WASN’T ALREADY SO FREAKING SMALL, THE SLATES WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE IMPACT THEY DID. WORLDCON HAS A PROBLEM WHEN IT CAN ONLY GET 2000 SFF FANS TO VOTE.
There’s one easy way to stop the effectiveness of slates: Increase the size of the voting pool. Get other SFF fans involved. And you don;t have to debate and wait for two years for that to take effect. Want proof? Take the example above. Increase the number of votes from 15 to 30. Slateman and his four followers still vote the same. Are you going to get the same result?
@ray
> The Hugos have been voted on by Worldcon members since they were founded.
Every vote for the Hugos this year (including every nomination vote) was by a Worldcon member. So why are you complaining about what other Woldcon members do?
It seems that you consider some Woldcon members more real than others. What is your criteria for making this determination. How can you look at a person and decide if they are a “real” Woldcon member or whatever you call the other class?
If the answer comes down to “they voted wrong”, then you have a very subjective and isolationist viewpoint and cannot say that Woldcon is welcoming to outsiders. In that case, it’s only welcoming to outsiders who you agree with.
“There’s one easy way to stop the effectiveness of slates: Increase the size of the voting pool.”
Sure. Or give each voter 4 choices, and have 6 places on the ballot. Or give everyone one vote per category, which they can divide between up to 5 nominations.
In the meantime, I’m glad to see we all agree that slate voting distorts the process.
Don’t presume to speak for everyone here, Ray, you lying troll. Courtesy does not conflate to agreement.
Ray, do not presume to speak for anyone besides yourself. And, really, do try to come up with better illustrations, ones that don’t erase the fact that four other voters in your example voted for slate candidates and did indeed get their choices reflected in the final results.
As for 4/6, I would not vote for any attempt to change the Hugo rules that punishes the electorate.
Ray,
Who said anything about slate voting distorting the process? Not I.
Any rule change is going to take 2 years before implementing, assuming rule change passes.
Why is that process easier than increasing the voting pool?
Changing the voting rules is like ignoring a burning building and putting the hoses on the building next door that’s not on fire.
Consensus =/= democracy. And if I don’t vote for the works that become the nominees, my voice loses out, by design of whatever selection process is in effect, else voting is useless as a decision-making process.
So pardon me if I don’t see how making the rules more arcane makes more sense than increasing the electorate. Let’s try putting the World into Worldcon.
I’m going to have a difficult time next year voting for best related work between ShadowDancer’s essay and the one by Peter Grant.
James May, I find myself curious what Paul Weimer is talking about. Is he in fact threatening to do something to Vox Day which would land him in jail? But only in Rome and only in November? Can you provide a link?
“Kary English, Eric Flint, Martin Wisse, Max Florschutz, Vox Day, Peter Grant, Peter Watts, Ria, L.S. Taylor, G. K. Masterson, Laura “Tegan” Gjovaag, Zander Nyrond, Lis Carey, Rebekah Golden”
Yet another day where Glyer has only one name that represents the movement which started this ruckus in SFF. That’s Wisse, an extremely minor player. The view has become so distorted I’m not surprised how many of the comments amount to gibberish. That’s what happens when the police rush to the wrong address.
Not paying attention to some people and others keeping their heads down cuz they know their assery is being watched amounts to a memory-hole.
First, @Shadowdancer: I am quite serious: that sounds like the beginning of an amazing, heartfelt, and extremely sad story. If I were an editor, I’d publish it. No joke. I would not ask you to write any further about your personal loss any more than I would try to write again about my ex-girlfriend’s sudden, traumatizing death, but for the record, that is very powerful prose. If you do end up finishing it, I’d submit it to the goddamn New Yorker. Not something I suggest lightly. Real serious grief is hard for me to write about, so I place a high value on people who can do that.
@Angus Trim: Thanks! Appreciate your serious effort to read my way-too-long comment, and for sharing the details about your concussion and strokes. I’ll check Monster Hunter 1. I sincerely hope your mobility isn’t too affected. Funny how the internet can shave off all the personal details.
I’m not surprised that the length broke your brain; my writing’s fried the brains of people who *haven’t* had to go through what you did. And yup, Spokane. (I now have a plane ticket there.)
James May, FYI, Mr. Glyer is commenting at According to Hoyt.
@Michael Brazier: The first chapter of Ancillary Justice is online for free. I’ll read it tonight. If you want to, here’s the link: “http://www.amazon.com/Ancillary-Justice-Imperial-Radch-Leckie/dp/031624662X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434572763&sr=8-1&keywords=ancillary+justice
Opening sentence: “The body lay naked and facedown, a deathly gray, spatters of blood staining the snow around it.” Nice opener. I’d need to read more, but it’s a good hook.
The pronoun thing’s a gimmick, sure, but it’s there (I believe) bc it’s a poorly programmed AI. My guess is Lenckie did it to keep putting the reader in the head of an alien presence (or to make the AI’s quest for revenge harder? If you can’t identify gender, everyone you meet is a suspect). George Perec did actually write an entire novel without the letter E, just for the challenge and fun of it. It’s good for about 200 pages, then loses narrative cohesion.
To buy your argument, I have to assume: that out of the hundreds of sci-fi books published in 2014, people deliberately voted for a bad book they didn’t even like, when they *could* have voted for something they loved like Max Barry’s Lexicon or Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One. And why? To send some kind of message about gender? What message? *Message* fiction about gender looks like The Left Hand of Darkness. It doesn’t look like AJ.
I don’t think you’ve asked yourself: “is it possible other people really liked this book for other reasons besides the gender thing?” I’m also guessing you haven’t talked to or emailed anyone who *liked* Ancillary Justice to ask them why they liked it. No one who loved Ready Player One would throw their vote away on something else. That’s where you lose me.
@ray,
4 of 6 voting does not make the process slate proof, it makes it take a larger group to sweep everything, but not that much larger.
assuming that you have people who will blindly vote the slate and not read and use their judgement (which is what you are claiming), then all you need to do is to distribute their votes a bit.
you could do it by saying “everyone with a name a-f vote this way, everyone g-m this way, and n-z this way” or you could randomize the order that you list the works every time someone views the list (which is a good idea anyway as it eliminates any bias due to accidental ordering of the list)
if 10% of voters was enough to sweep the nominations with 5 of 5, then 15% would sweep it with 4 of 6.
I had this tab open, thought I’d link it before I forget why I had it open. (I am sleep deprived. I didn’t sleep again, this time because of grief.)
Wow, thanks Greg; those are very kind words. Honestly, that sort of thing had been hovering around in my mind a lot; Brandon would be five months old now if he’d lived; he died at 2 months and a half. So I guess that’s why it came up as a quick example of ‘if you were…’ that I clattered out in five minutes. I looked it over and thought it might be cathartic to write out more completely later on, but probably when I’m not reeling from lack of sleep. (Attempt two at resetting my sleep schedule begins now! Must remain awake 13 hours more…)
I would not know how to submit it to the New Yorker. ^^; For what it’s worth, this was instalanched a few days ago:
https://www.affsdiary.com/shadow/2015/06/10/nazi-is-not-a-term-you-throw-around-lightly/
I link the blog post about my youngest son’s stillbirth near the top; and if you somehow make it through the massive historical background that was necessary, I also link Peter Grant talking about how he fought against Apartheid (which was also instalanched.) Now his glimpses into history are very much worth reading.
Alas the coffee is failing to jumpstart my brain so I think I’ll attempt a brief nap, to see how that works out. (I have lots of time. It’s only 7 am ahahahahaha~ *fall over*)
Of course, in true sleep deprived form, I forget to link the link… that I uhm, had the tab I mentioned opened for to link…
~_~ Sorry.
“I don’t think you’ve asked yourself: “is it possible other people really liked this book for other reasons besides the gender thing?”
The gender thing gets brought up because, at the time, it’s what AJ’s most vocal advocates were gushing about on Twitter. So, yes, fans were very public about liking it because of the silly pronoun thing. YMMV.
As for the opening sentence, I’d likely next it as not strong enough a hook, but I’ll agree to disagree on preference.
Greg, did you notice that in the Goodreads final voting The Martian got 30,000 votes vs. 3,000 for AJ?
My claim about AJ is as follows and it is not science but an opinion: radical feminists in SFF spotted AJ’s theme about gender right away and began to promote it mercilessly and that was immediately signal-boosted. I watched it happen in real time and awards talk started on day one.
A high profile equals a high profile. What’s mysterious about that or how it performed outside a feminist bubble in a completely opposite fashion? People read and award what’s put in front of them as worthy to read and award. If they were not susceptible to such things there would be no commercials. This does not rule out people who liked the novel, but it is more than just a little suggestive. Obviously a lot of people didn’t care about the gender thing but my argument is that in that particular environment more did than not, and outside it more didn’t than not.
I have read many reviews by readers and they are not all that impressed. I read reviews by reviewers and they all started with the gender thing. I don’t make this stuff up out of thin air, Greg. Did that ever occur to you?
@Michael Brazier: I should have led with: I appreciate your thoughtful response.
Cliques are real. Absolutely. A lot of awards are part popularity contest (don’t get me started on my experiences auditioning in college). But the best way to evaluate claims of bias is to look directly at the original evidence. By actually reading the story itself and saying ‘this story’s characters are two-dimensional, its plot is predictable–how the heck did THAT get nominated?’ I’ll look thru MH1, but:
The claim Puppies are making is, I believe, that stories no sane person could like have been getting Hugos (and/or nominations?) for the past ten years despite being mediocre or downright awful. If it’s a trend, there ought to be at least one clearly godawful story in, I don’t know, eight out of the past ten years, stories I can pick up and think: “jesus, The Lords of Perth is better than that!”
46 short story nominees in the past ten years. Neil Gaiman’s Study in Emerald is spectacular and deserving. II’ll spot you–or any commenter–‘Dino’ as item 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Short_Story
That leaves 44 stories to choose from. Give me 7 egregiously bad winners/nominees and I’ll read them in full with my toughest editor’s eye. I *write* scifi & fantasy, so I’m a much easier sell here than your typical lefty: If people are getting bad stuff published and winning awards for it while my better stories are getting rejected, they’re essentially stealing my money. (Or, heck, if you’d rather cite novellas and novellettes, I’ll cheerfully accept those.)
“Cecily Kane @Cecily_Kane 53m53 minutes ago @renay INORITE white dude TLDR entitlement”
“Sunil Patel @ghostwritingcow 48m48 minutes ago @renay @Cecily_Kane Most of it by white dudes I think?”
“Renay @renay 47m47 minutes ago @ghostwritingcow @Cecily_Kane Never underestimate an older white dude when an institution that benefits them is on the line!”
HEY LOOK EVERYONE! SAD PUPPIES ARE RACISTS.
They’re talking about an earlier Flint piece about SP.
It routinely amazes me adults in America in the 21st century think there’s nothing wrong with that while calling mistaken identity or not writing PoC correctly racism.
At some point you have to imagine you might be dealing with high-functioning sociopaths.
@James May: The Martian is spectacularly good. That book… The Martian gives me the same response I had when I read Rothfuss’ The Name of the Wind, in other words: “[cursing deleted] how the bleep is this so GOOD?!”
AFAIK, The Martian was disqualified from Hugo consideration because it was initially published online in 2011, meaning it needed to technically get readers *that* year. -THAT’S- a problem. The Martian would’ve had a very good chance of winning the novel for Best Hugo in 2014 had it not been ruled ineligible.
My understanding is that the committee deciding to rule it ineligible really liked it, but that the rules as written did not allow for a self-published to be re-considered once published later in the same form. A rule change to allow works like The Martian to be nominated in their year of pro-publication as well I’d be totally in favor of. I suspect a lot of people would.
@Shadowdancer: So many thanks for sharing both those posts. The one about Brandon is courageous, and does your family and you proud. I had to stop reading briefly to avoid tearing up. I am 1/3rd way thru the one about your father.
The New Yorker rejects a lot of things that are amazing, so if you do submit, don’t worry about the response–I say that bc this story would clearly be intensely personal, and I wouldn’t want to cause you any further harm on top of what you’ve already experienced.
If you wish to, their link is here:
http://www.newyorker.com/about/contact
Scroll down to fiction–you basically email a pdf to ‘fiction@newyorker.com.’
Everyone replying to me has been polite, respectful, and engaging– I very much appreciate it. I will be back either tonight or tomorrow. I have to get back to day job work now (gotta pay the bills.)
The claim Puppies are making is, I believe, that stories no sane person could like have been getting Hugos (and/or nominations?) for the past ten years despite being mediocre or downright awful. If it’s a trend, there ought to be at least one clearly godawful story in, I don’t know, eight out of the past ten years, stories I can pick up and think: “jesus, The Lords of Perth is better than that!”
You’re misstating the Sad Puppies case, perhaps by unintentionally simplifying it. I’m sure you can find someone sane that likes just about any work. You can probably find enough sane people that like about any work to meet the ridiculously low numbers needed to secure a Hugo nomination. There have been very few stories even remotely as bad as ‘If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love’ that made it through the nomination process; however, that story in particular serves as the proverbial dead canary in the coal mine that there is a problem. The problem is the biases shown by those few people that actually nominated in the past; most of the works that have made it through have been those with a Social Justice bias; until Sad Puppies came along, works with an anti-Social Justice bias didn’t make it through, and those that the Sad Puppies got through were actively campaigned against without being evaluated on their merits. If you have a board game with four supposedly even sides, and in a hundred playthroughs, red wins 49% of the time, green and yellow 25% of the time, and blue 1% of the time, there’s something not right. It may be that the best player in your test group always takes red, but the results need to be looked at, not dismissed. The Hugo may just be WorldCon fans are not representative of fans as a whole, but for the award to serve its purpose, the fans should be representative. (To those stubbornly arguing, “no, it’s WorldCon’s award”, then you’ll just have to live with the Sad Puppies being part of WorldCon until they think the Hugo is no longer supposed to be for Science Fiction as a whole.)
The opposition to the Sad Puppies has, with the exception of a handful of individuals (GRRM, Eric Flint, and, from this comment thread, Paul Oldroyd), always been couched in Social Justice terms. The Sad Puppies are portrayed as extreme right racist sexist misogynist Fascist homophobic neo-Nazi Mormon Zionist running-dog Capitalist wreckers (did I miss any?). That’s not someone trying to keep politics out of WorldCon, that’s someone trying to retain their privilege by using politics to bash their enemies. Those same Social Justice activists had turned their attention on remaking Science Fiction as a whole. Ask yourself, is it more important that a story not stick to binary gender norms, or that a story be enjoyable. Anyone that opts for the non-enjoyable story that defies gender conventions I will fight without compromise. (I don’t necessarily have a problem with an enjoyable story that defies gender norms, I’ve read too much Heinlein and watched too much Anime, but the enjoyable part is the important one.)
I understand that about The Martian, Greg. You’re missing the point: an SF novel that was about SF, artistry, excitement and drama to the exclusion of all else was of no interest to SJWs. Its eligibility is a non-factor. It was ignored. Outside that bubble, The Martian exploded. The race-gender feminist ideology at the core of SFF doesn’t give a shit for work like The Martian. The Martian is a canary in a coal mine, Greg.
Why do think a 7 time Hugo/Nebula nominated writer doesn’t know who Jack Vance is but knows every queer, non-white and female SFF writer on Earth? Why do you think her and others sit at Strange Horizons or the goofball feminist Book Smugglers ragging on white men? Literature? At last year’s Nebulas did M.R. Kowal Tweet only one white man won because of literature? Do you think a Lightspeed reviewer doesn’t review white men out of a love of literature? Do you think unhousebroken simpletons ask us not to read cis white males out of a fascination with words? Do you think two Nebula nominees were skulking around this year’s Nebula’s making fun of whites with selfies and anti-white hashtags because they just love Jack Vance? I got 39 kazillion stories like that, Greg.
When is obvious obvious? Ever?
Other than the onion you use for actual thought, who said that about Wu?
Greg, I think the actual claim that the Sad Puppies are making is that what’s been pushed for the Hugos has pushed not because of how well it’s written or connected with the audience, but because it advocated a certain social justice message or was written by some victimized minority.
All I ever heard coming from the ASPs about AJ before, during and after the Hugos, was how novel and brilliant the pronoun usage was and how important it was for feminism to do this. When the Nebulas were announced last year the ASPs immediately started talking about the gender and minority status of the authors, not about the quality of the frakkin’ stories.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND FOR YOU GUYS?!? – We want well written, entertaining stories and to with the gender, sexuality or skin color of the author.
It seems my message got edited.
We want well written , entertaining stories and to hot place ruled by a fallen angel with the gender, sexuality or skin color of the author.
kamas716, amen.
@Ray: Let me put my answer in simple terms: We know there’s a conspiracy, because when we said there was a conspiracy, the knives came out immediately.
I hope that was simple enough.
I don’t even care about the feminist stories. No one’s making me read that stuff. What I care about is the racial incitement and demonization of men and open discrimination SJWs use to justify that stuff. It’s nothing more than plain old everyday hate speech and their childish excuses about never being guilty of racism or sexism is a con game.
And then they come at us with these equally childish statements like “Oh, look, a white man is feeling oppressed.”
Rights work two ways: if you’re not going to give ’em, you’re not going to get ’em. Don’t come whining to me when someone does to you what you do to me. Safe spaces work two ways too. That’s why hate speech is so dangerous; once you open that Pandora’s Box who are you going to cry to? Cis white dudes? “Allies”?
Morons like K. Tempest Bradford have set the precedent. Don’t be surprised what future boycotts might look like. One thing about these people we’ve learned: they never quit and don’t know when to shut up. You can boycott review people and they’ll never know it.
*takes screenshots of proof that Yama is stalking more, and screaming about me asking a question*
“Farah Mendlesohn retweeted Cory Doctorow @doctorow Jun 16 Some things free speech is NOT : 1)compelled publication; 2) compulsory attention”
Compulsory heterosexuality. Hahaha. What an idiot.
“Farah Mendlesohn @effjayem May 22 @applewriter WOC: Society sucks. White men: if you don’t like it, make yr own. WOC: we already built yours.”
“Farah Mendlesohn @effjayem 5h5 hours ago June 19th seems to have become Buy From @torbooks Day: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?727072 (because funnily, mass buying has more impact than boycot).”
This is the feminist SFF academic whose resignation kicked off Jonathan Ross getting hounded out of hosting the Hugos last year. These folks never stop. They hate us, and it’s not our politics. It’s just us.
That’s hysterical, coming from Luftwaffle.
Being able to stop one’s self from repeated acts of immorality would indicate self-awareness. In a civilizational sense at least, you are not sentient; you would not pass the Paul Atriedes test.
Quick question for Michael Brazier regarding comments around the best editor category.
Now you suggested it was a place to look to for evidence of an insider clique. But I just can not find it. And I have looked, I have been over the history of the best editor award.
If you were suggesting that the best editor award showed how insular the Hugos can be and have historically been, I would agree. If you were suggesting that somehow the best editor could be used as an indication of how insular the Hugos are as a whole, I would be open to that argument (need a little convincing, but open to it).
But what I gather you were suggesting was that it was evidence of the ‘clique’ that has been controlling, dominating or suggesting taste for recent Hugos. To me this suggests that the best editor award should be more insular in recent years. That less people are winning it, because the same few ‘clique’ members are winning them all up.
But this is not the case, the last ten years of best editor Hugos have been the less insular in the awards history.
Now the issue with looking at the last ten years of best editor Hugos is that in 2007 the award split into best long form and best short form. So I added the last two years of best editor to each the best long form and short form to get a list of ten years.
For the last ten years (2014 – 2005), Long Form, you have six individual editors winning the Hugo. Patrick Nielsen Hayden and David G. Hartwell, tor editors, won three each in this ten year gap. The other four only won, one a piece.
For Short Form, five individual editors have won Hugos. Ellen Datlow winning the most with, four Hugos.
Now personally I think the short form award, makes the best comparison to past best editor Hugos, as historically they have been won by short fiction editors. So that gives us a total of 5 individuals winning Hugos over ten years.
If we jump back to 2004 – 1995, we start to see how insular the best editor Hugo can get. Two editors won awards in this block of ten years. Ellen Datlow, won in 2002. Gardner Dozois from Asimov’s Science Fiction, won the rest, for a total of nine over those ten years.
1994 – 1985, we have three editors winning nine Hugos. Now one of these years was a no award, as Judy-Lynn del Rey was received the award in 85 after her death, but was declined by her husband. Gardner Dozois is the big winner here again, winning six best editor Hugos.
1984 – 1975 is the last block of ten. In this block we have four editors sharing the ten awards. Ben Bova from Analog is the biggest winner from this block, winning four Hugos.
Now 1974 and 1973 were the first two years of best editor Hugos, and both went to Ben Bova. They however did not fit neatly into ten year blocks.
So to recap all that.
2014-2005 – 6 or 5 individual winners, depending on what list you want to take.
2004-1995 – 2 individual winners
1994 – 1985 – 3 individual winners (with a possible four, if you count the award not accepted on Judy-Lynn del Rey behalf)
1984 – 1975 – 4 individual winners
I think its clear that the best editor Hugo is becoming less insular. If this is the cliques doing, then they have decided that more editors deserve to win a best editor Hugo, or they do not have all that much power over this category.
I just am curious how you classify this category as an example of ‘clique’ control.
Luftwaffe,
Puppy don’t fetch. Do your own research.
@ Greg at 3:31
A couple of things:
The Sad Puppy claims are individual, we all have different beliefs. I happen to believe that the nominations were done by slate more than once over the last few years. The actual votes, maybe not. Might just be a real small, real insular crowd.
But, over the last two months or so, three prominent long time SFF writers have said that slates and log rolling have been a part of Hugos for a long time.
David Gerrold said it on his Facebook page a few weeks ago. GRRM said it when he and Larry Correia were having a nice chat about the Puppy slates right after the nomination announcements. Both gentlemen {Gerrold and Martin} seem to be more concerned about the size and scope of the slates, the fact that they were out in the open, and that they were so successful.
Jerry Pournelle is the third prominent writer that said slates {though not public} have been around a long time. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with it. This came up in a conversation at “According to Hoyt” a couple of weeks ago.
No, I don’t have links. If I’d have thought this would have come up, I’d have copied and pasted them on a Word document, and kept them. Never dawned on me I’d need them.
For me, that’s where the talk about “secret slates” comes from. Your mileage may vary.
On the actual votes, its my belief that what we’re looking at a small voting pool that no longer is really representative of the readership. In my opinion, the way to correct that is for more voters, who have decided to put enough energy into this to be informed voters at nomination time, and award time.
My take on things.
Angus, EverNote is your friend. I was skeptical, but gave it a try. It is free but the upgraded versions have some nice features.
“Do my own research, huh? My research tells me the Sad Puppies are just as delusional as I thought they were.”
Oh, Clampsy, you’re a neverending font of delusional amusement. I’d say “never change”, but that’d be a lie.
Larry “I’m Not Clamps, Really!” Luftwaffe says:
June 17, 2015 at 7:23 pm
Do my own research, huh? My research tells me the Sad Puppies are just as delusional as I thought they were.
Hint: The opinions you form in your tiny overheated little head are not in any way “research”.
HTH, HAND.
greg @ 3:31 again. Eric Flint mentioned it too, the slates that is, while he was telling the Puppies what shits we are.
Got to love it…….
Thanks Quizzer. I’ll look into it when I get a breather. Have seven novels to publish over the next fourteen weeks. Starting this weekend {hopefully}.
After that I should be able to take a moment and try and learn something new.
Thanks again.
Greg: “AFAIK, The Martian was disqualified from Hugo consideration because it was initially published online in 2011, meaning it needed to technically get readers *that* year. -THAT’S- a problem. The Martian would’ve had a very good chance of winning the novel for Best Hugo in 2014 had it not been ruled ineligible.”
A lot of people on every side have brought up this issue, which makes me think that it’s a genuine problem. Instead of “pro-publication” (unless it’s…. the first year said indie book sold over “X” number of volumes, but even then… “pro-pubs” might sell very little) maybe an actually helpful rule change on eligibility would be “year of publication plus two.” Then the Martian, published in 2011, would be eligible in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Even if published the last month of 2011.
I don’t know if I count as a Sad Puppy or not, but my viewpoint certainly tends to align with theirs. I am not an author, and I did not participate in the nominating process, though I did shell out the $40 to vote after I saw some people pretending to be against slates advocate voting No Award rather than even *considering* anyone not on their own (anti-Puppy) slate. If I hadn’t done so then, I would have after seeing people argue that the SPs were “cheating” by following the actual rules.
I keep seeing people say how evil Vox Day is. I don’t know how much of that is true, and how much is the typical SJW exaggeration/ fabrication. Even if everything said about him is the absolute truth, though, he just seems par for the course as far as the anti-Puppies are concerned… he (or at least the “he” as he is talked about) just has different targets.
The anti-Puppies don’t like being called Social Justice Weenies (oops, that’s supposed to be Warriors)? I’ve seen too many blanket accusations of nazism/ racism/ sexism/ homophobia from them, which is the same crap that SJWs in areas outside SF/F throw around. I seem to recall a quote from Shakespeare about a lady protesting.
It seems to me that the “Truefen” (or whatever) have had their own little clique running things, and are now upset that outsiders noticed that they don’t HAVE to be allowed to run things. They’re like a “mean girl” group in high school upset because people from the D&D and A/V clubs started sitting at “their” lunchroom table.
Oh, and Gallo? Yeah, it was her own Facebook page. But her remarks were directly related to her career and put her employer in a bit of a spot. It’s not like she was just some random truefan, she was publically badmouthing people who her employer might reasonably expect to assign her to work with. That’s a no-no.
julieapascal on 6/16 at 2039
Thank you for that. I have attended three different conventions and have dealt with a number of the snide remarks and attacks from other congoers to the point where at the last one I spent half the con in my room because it wasn’t worth dealing with the snipes. Online I have seen relatively benign comments bring forward uproars and death threats. Honestly after the last few months, I would never attend a worldcon out of fear for my personal well being (And I will be five hours from MidAmericon). I am glad that I am not the only person that has had issues of that nature.
@Randy Wilde – You are a Sad Puppy if you want to claim the name. There is no other requirement. Should you identify as such, well, you can see what they’ll call you.
@aacid14 – I’ll be going to Sasquan and am already gearing up to ask polite but pointed questions. I’m expecting the worst, hoping for the best. There is no way I’m bringing my twelve year old. I am not exposing her to the madness that will almost certainly be going on. That is an incredibly sad sentence to type.
@Quizzer – They’ll call me that anyway because I like different books than they do.
aacid14… You are FAR from alone.
I’m beginning to think that the problem is more that we’re sort of all alone together because once you start being silent it gets really hard to find each other. I don’t think that the off-hand insults would bother me so much if *I* didn’t feel alone.
I envy cons with Bar Fly groups but then… I suppose there’s nothing stopping me from renting a room on the party floor and advertising and seeing who shows up. Hmm? (Never mind that I haven’t been to Baen’s Bar in ages.) Since no one else hosts one, who’s going to complain?
If I sit in the room all alone it would be a bit of a bummer. But rationally, I know that worrying about that is irrational. If nothing else, I could bring a game or two and pay for memberships for my (adult) children. 🙂
Hey, Ray? “Sure. Or give each voter 4 choices, and have 6 places on the ballot. Or give everyone one vote per category, which they can divide between up to 5 nominations.”
Give each voter 4 choices. Divide your “slate” in half and have each half vote 4 choices, for a total of 8, which is greater than the 6 places on the ballot. Sweep.
Give everyone 1/5 of a vote per entry per category and… I’m not sure what that one is supposed to accomplish. Again, if your “chart” above and the conclusions are right, an even 1/5 split for 5 agreed upon nominees is 20% “voting the slate” on each so even if people throw their whole 5/5th on a single book more than 20% have to throw it on the same book. Sweep.
I’m not recommending that, BTW, just pointing out that if someone had the desire to do so (and in general terms Sad Puppies have NO desire to do so) it remains every single bit as easy to “game” as before. The change solves nothing.
You know… the only way to ensure that Sad Puppies don’t accidentally *share opinions on favorite books* with anti-puppies and overlap preferences with other people’s favorite books, stories and whatnot… is to endeavor to drive off authors who are endorsed by whoever is curating the Puppy list on any given year. Which was quite effective this year. Of course, anti-puppies have to be jerk face a**holes on an ongoing basis, but there you go. If it’s not possible to get authors to bow out “spontaneously”, they can always be no-awarded for the taint.
Any situation can be gamed. My first thought when I heard about the ruckus was to just limit the nominating ballots to 3 titles per person, but still have 5 spaces on the final votes. It can still be gamed, but would require more coordination, and my impression is that despite the canine reference, coordinating the Sad Puppies would be more like herding cats.
Of course, it might be even easier to just disqualify any book that anyone online has recommended as a good read, since that recommendation might constitute a “slate”.
Do my own research, huh? My research tells me the Sad Puppies are just as delusional as I thought they were.
So, Andrew P. Marston of Marshfield, MA, all your research ever does is confirm your biases?
“Ye gads! I’m always right! I must be the God of Inerrancy!”
@Paul Oldrhoid:
I am sorry about your old rhoid. May you find relief. Maybe some salve.
@julieapascal and @aacid14
I’m not a TrueFen (I attended my first con this year, but I’ve read sci-fi for *mumble, mumble* years). I’m not a Puppy and wasn’t really aware of the whole Hugo brouhaha until after nominations this year. I hate the toxicity of the current situation. I want to read and talk good sci-fi, and I’d love to meet you in KC next year. I’ve been waiting until Sasquan to decide whether to go; if the TrueFen No Award everything, I’m not sure I’ll go to MidCon. However, if awards are given and people show they can act like adults in mixed company, I would very much like to attend in KC. We could be alone together. 🙂
“By speaking when she did, in my view, Irene was doing what other thought leaders in our field like N. K. Jemisin, John Scalzi, and the Nielsen Haydens have done: guarding the health and well-being of our SFF community by standing up against hate speech.” – Laura Mixon
“Thought leaders…”
I find that comment so completely delusional I have no words for it, but that’s what you’re up against. I cannot detect anything remotely like a principle or fair play there. it is an Orwellian rat’s nest of a world without laws.
*
“A friend has pointed out to me that any attempt to calm people down is doomed unless everyone involved wants to calm down… I cannot think of a single instance where a call for peace was effective.” – David Gerrold
Have you tried what I have called for these 3 years – a simple statement of principles and rules all will abide and benefit by? Try it on for size. According to you, what have you got to lose? Of course there are those who don’t want to calm down. In society, in more serious circumstances we call them “criminals” and create rules to deal with them. You will never have peace if criminals are included in law-making, or rather, making sure there never are laws. Which side is doing that one? Not ours. We are ignored whenever the subject is brought up.
davidelang for the win!
https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/narratives-vs-facts/#comment-15172
If all of the WrongFen would just stop their BadThink, the HUGO could go back to being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dr Who Fan Club.
BadThink of the Day: If the WrongFen win out, I won’t be able to keep using the Hugo as a guide to keep from wasting money on CHORF-schlock.
Another must read article for those trying to understand the Sad Puppy cause. Compare the sentiments quoted in this article to those quoted by James May.
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/419897/print
BadThink of the Week:
If the Gallo’s of the world really believe their NeoNazi accusations, it is incumbent upon them to divest themselves of their ill-gotten gains. They need to stop taking money from these rabid-neo-nazi’s. They need to divest themselves of every ill-gotten neonazi dollar they have previously received. Otherwise every dollar they keep is a vote against their social justice principles in favor of neonazi-ism. Only racist-misogynist-homophobic-neonazis could keep neonazi tainted dollars. Cuz….Social Justice.
Hell, the SJW’s should be working for free anyway, cuz “social justice”, cuz salaries are the sort of thing only neoNazi’s would take. (Wait….National SOCIALISTS want SALARIES? OH! Its so confusing to follow SJW thinking.)
Here is more mastermind thought without principle attached:
“Nick Mamatas on June 17, 2015 at 11:14 pm said:
“After several weeks, there are clear answers to demands to point out where Brad might have racist or sexist attitudes (Affirmative Action; telling Juliette Wade how she feels about the Puppy slate rather than reading Wade’s actual words) or homophobic ones (the whole Scalzi-might-not-like-girls bit, including apology).”
* The hundreds of comments (and apparent results) about affirmative action initiatives by SJWs are a matter of record, not anyone’s racism.
* A man disagreeing with a woman is not sexism, even if the man is wrong.
* If gender-expression jokes were wrong SJWs would be the first to line-up with their thousands of quoted insults and even phobias of heterosexuals
Seems like someone drinks Orwell’s extra-doublethink strength kool-aid after all.
What you have there is a system of thought where thousands of viciously racist and anti-male comments become social justice and a single joke about gays, acknowledging affirmative action exists and disagreeing with a woman turn into homophobia, racism and misogyny. Of course that requires even more social justice where white men can’t use their eyes, poke fun at a guy who wears dresses or disagree with women. The only thing Mamatas forgot is to write “Wade’s sacred words of a woman.”
If SJWs aren’t actively retarded I have no idea what is at work here. If that’s Mamatas’ idea of the word “clear” then clearly “clear” can mean just about anything.
No rules, no debate
Brianna Wu knows those things are core to her mission
Not a her. A surgically mutilated eunuch, definitely NOT a female.
The latest narrative: we’re in it for the money!
“toliver @toliver · 2h2 hours ago
I think that there is an economic bottom line for the behavior of the Sad and Rabid Puppies. They stir the pot to make money”
Send us your money. After all, Scalzi and Wendig don’t want it. 🙂
“Laura Resnick @LaResnick 9h9 hours ago @PrinceJvstin It was sincere. I thought that person genuinely came across like he was having some sort of episode.”
“Paul Weimer Republic @PrinceJvstin 4h4 hours ago @LaResnick oh, he comments and talks like this ALL the time.”
“Laura Resnick @LaResnick 3h3 hours ago @PrinceJvstin I’m not sure if that’s funny or tragic. Tragiocomic, maybe?”
“Paul Weimer Republic @PrinceJvstin 3h3 hours ago @LaResnick I’ve called him my Evil Twin, since it works on levels within and without of genre.”
Hahahaha. They’re talking about a comment I left at Flint’s. They think people who defend not attacking millions cuz of their race and sex are having a mental breakdown. That’s why we keep the U.S. Constitution at Happy Acres; only mental cases can understand it.
*
Meanwhile, threatening people over science fiction is considered normal:
https://twitter.com/PrinceJvstin/status/610809502858936320
WeaponizedSJW @WeaponizedSJW 3h3 hours ago @SJWDevilsAdvocate I pray that Brianna Wu is not in Rome, and not in my presence, in November. I’d hate to wind up in an Italian Jail.
OH GOD! GAMERGATE IS ON THE LOOSE CALL THE UNITED NATIONS STOP ALL VISAS CALL OUT THE MARINES
You forgot the big one, James: THROW MORE MONEY IN HIS PATREON ACCOUNT!
“AFAIK, The Martian was disqualified from Hugo consideration because it was initially published online in 2011, meaning it needed to technically get readers *that* year. -THAT’S- a problem. The Martian would’ve had a very good chance of winning the novel for Best Hugo in 2014 had it not been ruled ineligible.”
It was initially published chapter by chapter on his website, then compiled into an epub, but people didn’t want to sideload it from his website, so he put in on Amazon through KDP and sold it cheap, like .99c when it first came out. 30K copies later Crown publishing asked Weir if he wanted a trad deal, and he said yes, and had to take the book off Amazon. I have one of the .99c copies on my kindle.
So, here’s my question:
The best book of SF in 2014 is the same book from 2011. No additional editing, no plot changes, nothing. How is it the SMOF’s, CHORF’s, Trufen, whatever, those who absolutely know and love SFF and know where to find the best works, missed this one? And how many other great works have they missed or ignored because it was outside their comfort zone of current authors?
Were I Weimer I’d find VD’s lack of comment worrying. We all know what that means by now. You cannot make threats like that and enter the EU.
But it is genuinely funny. Were that Wu, SJWs would be screaming someone attacked a woman, or rather, a transman. The funniest comments in that thread are about “You know they’re going to use that against you,” as if that wouldn’t be right. That’s like saying the cops are morons for using actual threats to use against people.
These people are unrelenting liars.
Something tells me the carabinieri have been called.
Lots of Sad Puppies wanted to nominate The Martian, but the outmoded rules wouldn’t allow it. And the anti-Puppies would just No-Award it because the wrongfans nominated it.
Trust me, if the hero of The Martian was a black woman, it would’ve mysteriously found its way to awards. Everyone knows that.
James, wasn’t there a story that had the same type of publishing history as ‘The Martian’ but it was allowed to compete?
Scalzi had Old Mans War online before publishing, but I think there was a rule change in between the years OMW was released and the Martian.
Here’s another story on which side actually is the one bringing the Culture War into fandom, and why this is a bad thing for everyone:
Eidos recently released a trailer for the next game in the Deus Ex series of Cyberpunk games, which features a plotline of prejudice by non-cybernetically altered humans against those with cybernetic modifications (so, while this is a gamer story, the connections to Science Fiction are undeniable). The developers chose to describe this prejudice (which seems to extend out to outright persecution such as confining in ghettos with a hint of loomng genocide) as ‘mechanical apartheid’. Cue the easily offended brigade, consisting of prominent editorial staff from publications known for being anti-GamerGate. Then the problem shows up; the game developer that was project director for the game is black.
He continued, stating that “these bloggers and tweeters… have degraded me and have literally erased my identity as a black developer and as a black creator that just wanted to share a piece of himself with this game.”
Even if you do everything right, it’s not good enough. These are people looking to find any conceivable rationale for attacking something, and willing to attack without even finding out the details. There will always be kooks eager to take offense on all sides of the debate, but the fact that these people are considered prominent members and even gatekeepers makes this a big problem for all of fandom, and all fandoms (movies, Science Fiction, Video Games, everything).
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/06/18/black-game-developer-blasts-critics-of-mechanical-apartheid-theme-in-deus-ex-mankind-divided/
Are you surprised Civilis? The whole point of pegging this SJW ideology is that once you understand it shares the exact goals of radical intersection gender feminism, you can predict its every move.
These fuckers are unholy terrors and “enjoy the game” and “live and let live” is not in their vocabulary. Feminist morality literally turned these guys white in the same way Rachel Dolezal turned “black.” That’s because these new feminists are sociopaths and their dumb “allies” a pack of rubes.
May 2012 John Scalzi’s White Privilege post
May 2012 First Anita Sarkeesian gender tropes in video games Kickstarter
What a shocking coincidence.
Wow, the socjuszealots are totally incapable of putting up with any kind of unprescribed and unapproved setting in fiction, huh? Why are they supposed to be able to tell us what to write and what to create?
Are you surprised Civilis? The whole point of pegging this SJW ideology is that once you understand it shares the exact goals of radical intersection gender feminism, you can predict its every move.
No, I’m not surprised. Though I do disagree with you as to the root cause, while ‘Identity group politics’ (of which Intersectional Gender Feminism is a substantial part) is very deeply entangled in there, ‘zero-sum economics’ and ‘the perfectability of human nature’ are at least as equally deep. This has been going on since long before 2012.
Power.
The fact that it’s impossible to keep track of the rules means there is a need for an external arbiter.
People who set themselves up as that person gain huge social power and the ability to ruin lives. Ie… Requires Hate. But even after that happens the “right thinking” people refuse to call bull stuff on the next rule change and public denunciation.
@julieapascal I think the full idea is that the you one point will be split between only the amount you vote for. So for example if you only vote for 4 works each vote is worth 1/4 a point. So the people who vote for less works have more powerfull votes. Basicly if you have two groups of 500 people, with one group voting for 5 works each work geting 100 votes, while if the other group votes only 4 works each work gets 125 votes. Of couse with that lead you would only need 401 people voting for 4 works (giving each work 100.25 votes) a and you would win 4 of the 5 slots.
Civilis, I agree this can be lumped under the identity politics which has been going on a long time. Without that, this new strain could never have happened.
But a simple look at what these people themselves claim to be reveals a sharp ideological break. They repeatedly define themselves as intersectionalist and feminist. That is an extremely specific gay feminist movement with a racial add-on that is reflective of intersectionalism’s interest in colonialism. The term “PoC” was created to address this, because in America, that’s been a black movement; intersectionalism is internationalist and global in outlook. You see that in their disdain for the West and the “Anglophone” “hegemony” time and again.
Their obsession with gender as a fake construct which act to oppress women and especially gay women is the other giveaway. That’s your “patriarchy.” It’s no coincidence Liz Bourke invokes Adrienne Rich’s “compulsory heterosexuality,” or that Judith Butler uses the identical term. Alex MacFarlane didn’t call for an end to the “binary” because she is a liberal nor did her and Bourke push Ancillary Justice because of generic identity politics. It’s no coincidence Scalzi fronted white privilege or hosted gay feminist Mary Ann Mohanraj’s 2 part white privilege post 3 years earlier.
This is not the male dominated Rainbow Coalition of Jesse Jackson, second wave NOW and male dominated GLAAD. This is a racialized cult largely based on Judith Butler’s critiques of French Queer Theory.
The reason the difference is crucial is because if you view this as the old Rainbow Coalition and try and predict or understand this movement based on that you will fail. In SFF, there are male frontmen but no male leaders. They do not formulate ideology but pass it on. They do that because they can’t formulate anything; they are straight white men. Neither can white women do so, not even gay ones, although they’re further up the hierarchy.
If you analysis what has been happening in SFF, the most credible voices and the one’s who actually act as a sort of jurists who make the final interpretations of this ideology are all non-white gay women.
That has proven to be an amazingly accurate predictor of how SJWs in SFF will respond to any pop cultural event.
Just connect the thousands of dots. Irene Gallo waves Kameron Hurley in our face who in turn links us to this year’s Tiptree winner for best novel Monica Byrne who’s blathering on about “the white male colonial gaze.” Like Rachel Dolezal, they have become “transblack” within this ideology. Like magic, white supremacist male neo-Nazis arrive, the ultimate opposite.
Anita Sarkeesian is the same. Her hero is bell hooks who in turn was profoundly affected by Judith Butler, and vice versa. All 3 define gender as reiterated acting, which is why you see so many feminists in SFF call for “agency” to reverse that process by repetitively showing (“performance”) women in multi-gender and multi-societal roles. These women literally believe men created the patriarchy by willing themselves into their roles – like magicians – and willing women out of important roles.
Over in gaming, they’ve done a much better job of unpacking this cult and talk about it in the very specific terms of gender feminist ideology. They’ve got Wu and Sarkeesian figured out.
As crazy as it sounds, that’s what you got, and yes, it is crazy.
And this has nothing to do with the perfectibility of human nature. There is no human nature in this ideology; if there were, it wouldn’t exist; it is supremacist. There is only the elimination of their opposite, in this case “toxic masculinity.”
They do not critique the failings of humans, but of straight white men who have repeatedly put themselves outside the human collective feminists define as themselves throughout history.
Shadowdancer: “Why are they supposed to be able to tell us what to write and what to create?”
They aren’t. They must be mocked or ignored.
And this has nothing to do with the perfectibility of human nature. There is no human nature in this ideology; if there were, it wouldn’t exist; it is supremacist. There is only the elimination of their opposite, in this case “toxic masculinity.”
They do not critique the failings of humans, but of straight white men who have repeatedly put themselves outside the human collective feminists define as themselves throughout history.
I’m looking at this as a piece of larger picture. This is a sideshow, actually, compared to what is going on in the universities and halls of government, though some of the performers are the same. That’s not to say that culture isn’t important, it may even be more important in the long run.
I don’t know if ‘the perfectibility of human nature’ is the best phrase I could have used, but the idea that there is some ideal configuration for mankind brought on, perhaps by the mighty power of an all-benevolent all-controlling state in the name of Progress, where bad things don’t happen to people, is one of the necessary roots of the Social Justice activist worldview. In this small corner of the debate, it’s hidden in a lot of places. It’s hidden in the belief that if left to nature, races and genders would be indistinguishable. It’s hidden in the belief that they and they alone have an objective view of what is just. It’s hidden in the belief that the rules that they create and use aren’t being used abusively and will never be abused. The fact that perfection has not been achieved means something is standing in the way of Progress, and that something must be removed. In the past, that’s been the capitalists and the kulaks for some, the Jews for others. Now it’s the white men or the patriarchy depending on where you stand.
Group Identity names the villain, it’s the one that’s winning the most, the one doing the best. The belief in human perfectibility names the crime, standing in the way of Progress.
I agree with that part. This is nothing more than the usual crass supremacy and hate speech we’ve seen before. The particulars allow us to predict it and fight it, but it’s just hate dressed in the usual nobility.
The reason I mention Orwell so much is one must have some understanding that as an average human one is vulnerable to con games and hate speech. Thinking one is above that sort of thing by virtue of sheer goodness or smarts is the very thing that allows hate speech to be mainstreamed. Hate speech is most dangerous when it gets under your guard by looking like an old friend.
If one doesn’t have something like tools of self-criticism that allow one to step outside one’s self, some principles that operate like a strike zone, some constant, society becomes vulnerable. In SJWland, anything is anything.
The sheer amount of arrogance you see from SJWs speaks to that. They feel invulnerable, but look how weak they are at debate. Their skills are non-existent. Though they pretend to, they don’t look for intellectual challenge but avoid it. And look how often they talk about “edgy” and “progressive” but when a true eccentric comes along and writes or expresses something in a non-conformist way they get creeped out. They laugh at Vox Day mentioning he has non-white blood but completely honor Tobias Buckell as “mixed-race,” though they look identically white. That’s called “lying” and a “con game.” When you are not aware of bias that obvious, you are in a lot of trouble.
SJWs are constantly Tweeting “wise” quotes without ever noticing the vast majority are non-white and non-Western. I long ago noticed how liberals would talk about photos of native-Americans as having some nobility and grace in a way they never would an Ohio truck driver, and yet they are the same. That is a huge tip-off.
Wisdom, grace, nobility and morality itself have become embedded in race and gender in SJW thought. It is a common human failing everyone is vulnerable to. What is not common is seeking ways to overcome that. Old school SF used to do that as a matter of course. It was constantly engaging in perceptual shifts. That’s all gone now, and I’m not surprised a cult sits where what once produced award anthologies did.
I am routinely stunned by the comments at Glyer’s. Even when I was a teenager I didn’t know kids that stupid.
One thing I instantly saw in Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Justice was how she appeared to think she was leading us out of perceptual traps and instead led us right into them.
That’s no surprise from an author who used “white straight cis guy,” “white straight cis guys,” “non-white, non-cis, non-straight, non-guys,” “white straight cis guys,” “white straight cis guys,” “white, straight, cis dude” all in one swinish post when addressing a lack of morality.
And read this almost insane gibberish from Scalzi about Bradford’s post on not reading cis white men:
“[whatever combination of not white and/or straight and/or male and/or cis] doesn’t have to go all the way to white straight cis male’ to shake up their reading lists. And also, and again as a practical matter, the number of people only or primarily reading [whatever combination of not white and/or straight and/or male and/or cis] is likely relatively small compared to those reading only/primarily straight white cis males.”
Welcome to the Ministry of Information.
Wisdom, grace, nobility and morality itself have become embedded in race and gender in SJW thought. It is a common human failing everyone is vulnerable to. What is not common is seeking ways to overcome that.
I think it’s because ‘Wisdom, grace, nobility, and morality’ have become embedded in victimhood, and sex and race are just easy ways to claim victimhood. I’m sure some have internalized that their sex or race makes them automatically the victim, but they will deny those protections the minute someone in that group steps out of line; crying sexism is a rationalization. If you can’t be the victim, claiming to stand up for victims by being an activist gives a similar egoboo. The more victims you can stand up for, the better. That’s why the trolls come here and fixate on small issues from the Sad Puppies rather than actually try to debate, it allows them the thrill of standing up for a ‘victim’. The ‘RVO’ part of ‘DARVO’ also applies here.
This is where Zero-Sum economics enters the picture: the way to identify the biggest victims is to look at the people or groups that have the least, and the way to look at the perpetrators is to look at who has the most, and to assume that force or fraud on the part of the most is why they have the most. (If you believe that the people that have the most may have more because they did more or even got lucky, and, contrary-wise, the people that have the least often are victims of Heinlein’s “bad luck”, this makes no sense.)
What’s worse is the mutual reinforcement. If everyone around you claims to believe that they were victims of a powerful conspiracy, you might begin to ignore any doubt you may have that your own flaws are not a fault of the conspiracy, especially because being a victim feels so good.
You can see these dynamics in other places.
“I’ve had bad luck recently. At the same time, that unusual person no one likes looked at me funny. Since it’s obviously not my fault, it must be his! He must be a witch! Burn the witch!”
“How come those Jews tend to be so wealthy? It could be that they value education, or that their religion doesn’t prohibit usury… but that doesn’t get me out of debt. Let’s persecute them and take their stuff!”
A lot of Social Justice seems to be establishing victim groups based on the perceptions of the victims, such as the whole idea of taking offense at microaggressions, or the whole ‘you have to be privileged to be racist’. This makes it unfalsifiable; the victims never have to prove their victimization, because asking them to prove their victimhood is in itself an offense that makes them a victim; a nice Catch-22 Kafkatrap.
When I was younger I used to wonder how Germans went nuts in the ’30s. I don’t wonder anymore. And what’s scary is that can happen anywhere. Nations can go insane. It’s obvious that Orwell’s world of 1984 is insane, but what’s less obvious is how it got that way, and I think that’s the central issue of the novel.
The other part of that equation is that the insanity is usually not complete until it is codified into law. What separates Jews in Germany in 1928 from 1942? We can presume anti-Semitism in both years but the dealbreaker is law.
What bothers me about SJW ideology is how it has done away with that notion and replaced it with interlocking cultural currents almost impossible to measure and yet defines those things as “systems” and “institutions” when they are not, like that shithole theory of white privilege Scalzi pawned off as obvious as “gravity.” The right to vote in 1965 and 1920 was a thing of law, not mysterious systems.
What that allows SJWs to do is talk about random anomalies like pay gaps or innocent demographics anywhere in American culture in the same way one used to talk about Jim Crow or the right to vote. You can see the con game in play right away since they never apply the same logic to all-male military cemeteries, nursing, teaching or rap music. And yet those cemeteries have been and remain a thing of law. The upshot is a lot of lying and an Orwellian world of misogyny which protects women and a white supremacy which elects black Presidents.
In a nation like America, SJWs are dangerous people. When you are practicing overt racial incitement and claiming anti-racism, you’ve already entered the world of Orwell.
@jsf001 That’s how I understood it. I just didn’t see the purpose of it. There’s a reason, after all, that a person gets to nominate more than one thing in each category. If I LOOOOVE whatever Wen Spencer’s latest book is, but I also really like a couple of other books that are likely more well known… what do I do? Saying, you can split them up… well, you could just have whole votes then… which is how it’s set up now. You get to pick up to five. It’s set up to get the story that most people thought well enough to win, while the odd balls with much smaller but far more enthusiastic groups of fans don’t win. Even if I agreed about the problem, I can’t imagine how that’s supposed to solve it.
@julieapascal By using the split meathod you can give all the works you vote for equal value as opposed to having 1 worth more. It does solve the stated “problem” of one group of people filling the entire ballot with only there choices. Another group could focus on one work and would only a fith of the votes to beat out the people on a full slate.
Now don’t get me wrong, it’s still a horrible system and it causes far more problems then it solves, but it would do the job of preventing one “slate” from taking all nominations. Personally I think the best option would be to increase the number of Hugo finalists while leaving every one only getting 5 votes.
@jsf001. My proposal was a preliminary round of 25 potential nominees. You nominate 5, like before (And like before, If you’re the only one to nominate something, it probably won’t show up) and then everyone picks five from those 25. Which gives the folks who had nothing get in SOME say on what does go on the final ballot. But it also means that slates can’t take over the noms (They could get 5 in the prelims, but even if they had 20% of the votes, the 80% remaining will have a say. Unlike the current system where the bottom 80% of the electorate are basically done).
Speaking of narratives, here’s some of the latest Twitter hate:
“Femmes in the Fridge @FemmesinFridges · Jun 17
@eilatan @avram And he had to rig the Hugos for nods. Its almost like, given a Scalzi and an anti-Scalzi, the market & critics picked Scalzi
Bill Stewart
@BillStewart415 @FemmesinFridges @eilatan @avram It’s possible that the fact that @Scalzi can write and Torgersen can’t has something to do with that.”
Do they know that Brad WASN’T nominated in Sad Puppies 3? Because they seem to think he was. And Scalzi definitely wasn’t nominated, even with two novel nominees withdrawing. Hell, he didn’t even get a Nebula nod, for that matter.
“Jen in Motion @jeninmotion · Jun 17
I am so shocked that Brad Torgersen is yet another grifter using SFF for right wing cred and $$$. No wait. I’m not.”
This one is baffling. “Yet another grafter”, what? And how much “right wing cred” do you get for SFF, really?
Read that thread to get the full monty about SFF’s new race engineers. Do they have no idea how weird they sound?
Ah, so marrying non-whites DOES make you non-racist. Well, I think they owe Brad a huge apology in that case, right? Right?
We’ve gone from Ringworld Engineers to Race Engineers, because that’s what SFF is all about. People who have weird obsessions never see that, and you can never talk them out of it. Why they’ve decided to coagulate in SFF like a blood clot is a mystery, but they seem to share an obsession with showing how racist they’re not and how racist everyone else is, including their own families. One thing’s for sure, they’ve certainly choked the life out of SFF. What’s more obvious than SFF stories that literally have no SFF? No weird obsession there.
The thing I love about Scalzi is the more that is revealed about the origins of the bizarre cult he’s decided to be a frontman for, the more he stubbornly doubles down. Anita Sarkeesian is a more stark example; she had no involvement with gaming whatsoever – none. However what she did have were other batshit crazy feminist “journalists” in gaming who were an analogy to Scalzi who decided to back her cause in the same way Scalzi decided to be the voice or Mary Ann Moharaj and Audre Lorde. Gamergate is a perfect comparison to the race-gender wars in SFF. Some of those “journalists” are now begging Patreon money on the internet. Instead of having learned a lesson they’ve gone indie and hope if they cry about white men enough other batshit crazy people like themselves will pay them.
Not knowing jack shit about the cult he decided to back, Scalzi is probably still unaware he’s adopted the ideology of insane lesbians from the ’60s who call for the destruction of the church, state and nuclear family. They call for the abolition of gender and binary heterosexuality because they’re really nothing more than a scarecrow men planted in a cornfield in 5,000 B.C. Scalzi has parlayed that insanity into a 3.4 million dollar Anita Sarkeesian-type Kickstarter with the help of a publisher riddled with other race-gender warriors who will set the world right by having more SFF-less stories about non-whites and lesbians.
How this will all turn out is unknown, but it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if Tor went out of business. They certainly don’t have mine, and for what? Nothing really. Just some dumbass crusade they pulled out of their backsides.
Read more of that thread Chris. Luhrs says adopting black kids doesn’t absolve her family of racism but that marrying more blacks does. Elsewhere, if Brad does it we’re back to the first.
These are some of the dumbest fucking people on Earth.
Quick note: some of the Twitter citations being noted in this thread, are a prime reason why I stay off Twitter. There’s enough crazy — dealing with a blog and a FB page — without being constantly sniped at on Twitter. Especially when those doing the sniping are a) lacking in facts, or b) clearly inventing their own facts, or c) are just plain dicks. Or, d) all of the above.
Speaking of Twitter feeds, in the last three years I’ve been researching SFF’s SJW feeds, I’ve seen the complete opposite of below. That is factual racial incitement and I can prove it any minute of the day, because the internet is forever.
Were I to produce a chart based on SFF Twitter feeds of interracial murders, it would be upside-down from this one, a stunning indictment. Someone call Milo and tell him to do that.
“Worse than the Exclusion Act. Worse than the Cosmic Circle crap. Worse than the Breendoggle, than the Old Wave/ New Wave struggle, than the competing Vietnam War ads.”
It’s none of that, but hyperbole-as-vilification seems to be the standard routine.
@calbeck. You left out this bit:
Try to understand that he was talking about the “fight” around the issue, not the issue itself.
For a better grasp of some of these incidents being discussed, (and not everyone is aware of them, given that they seem to go back decades), please refer to Fancyclopedia, which is an invaluable historical resource. The entry for Cosmic Circle esp is a host of WTF I CAN’T EVEN….man there was some crazy shit going on back in the day!
Snowcrash, that doesn’t make it any better. That people get more worked up over a trophy than the Fandom willfully overlooking and sheltering a child Molester/Abuser. If anything, it makes the antis look WORSE.
@Mauser, that’s both missing the point, and mis-representing what Breendooggle was.
Breendoggle
From what I can tell thus far, in the days after the Exclusion Act, declaring people persona non grata was seen as unconscionable, and the full (or even partial) scope and truth of what Breen (much less MZB!) did was not known. Some gray haired SMOF would have a better idea. Some of the stories Gardner Dozois shared in the Tor.com Hugo retrospectives were….just wow.
FWiW, I think the move in technology from when fandom was mainly convention-and-mailing list based to our constant instant comms and internet echo chambers had a far greater thing to do with the ferocity of this particular kerfuffle.
I HATE the term “Breendoggle”. It makes it sound like minor shenanigans, instead of child abuse and conspiracy to cover up said abuse.
At some point I think you have to accept the fact you’re dealing with a cult of people who are poorly educated and of poor character and who cannot think clearly.
You have people with a heightened interest in the male/female pay gap and how often women don’t get promotions who are just as disinterested in the far greater male suicide rate and who’s actually lying in military cemeteries. Their interest in murder and assault follow similar racial and sexual fractures. Am I really supposed to take such so-called neutral observations seriously? They are evidence of third-rate minds and a poorly thought out system of morality.
A credible human would talk about all those things at once.