Sad Puppies 3: were they contacted?

From the keyboard of George R. R. Martin:

Also… really, when you come down to it, this whole “were they contacted?” thing is a false issue. Torgensen says he contacted almost everyone, but missed a few. Some of his slate say no, they never heard from him… but does it really matter? I have been trying my damndest to get Alan Lee and John Howe nominated for Best Artist for years, and I never asked if I could. This year I wrote a long post about the brilliance of STATION ELEVEN and why it should be nominated in Best Novel, and I never contacted Emily St. John Mandel to ask if I could. I will not condemn Brad Torgensen for failing to do what I never do myself.

George is on record stating he dislikes the SP3 slate, as a thing. Not the contents so much, but as a concept. Thankfully George’s critical analysis skills are much more sharp than those of some other people who have spent the past week flailing away at the question of, “Were they contacted?”

I have said it adamantly: this is a red herring. It doesn’t really matter.

People kept hammering me: were they contacted??

Yes, I tried to contact as many people as I could. Hundreds of messages and e-mails. A few people turned me down, both before and after the slate went live at the beginning of February. I graciously pulled those who said, “Wait, I want off!” Many more have been unhappy about being later drafted for Vox Day’s Rabid Puppies alter-ego slate. For the latter case, I don’t blame them a bit, because many of the people I contacted for SP3 specifically said, “Don’t put me on anything Vox Day is going to be on,” and in point of fact, Vox Day is not on Sad Puppies 3 anywhere. I can’t be responsible for what Vox does. Only what I do. And I worked pretty damned hard to be courteous and reach out to people. Because I knew it was the gentlemanly thing. And I am sorry I missed some individuals, and that these individuals were unhappy with it. And for these failures, I accept full accountability. My bad.

But really, can I ask the field to step back and examine a deeper question? To go along with what George said above?

Why does being on a list force any author, artist, or editor, to have to explain anything?

Poor Annie Bellet had to roll out a long list of progressive bona fides to “prove” she is not in league with the dark forces. That she is a child of the light. That she is not now, nor has she ever been, a member of the Communist Party!

Why did Annie have to do that?

Because the instant her name appeared on a list, people started in on her. Assumptions began to be made. All kinds of loyalty tests began to be applied. The questions and the dividing and the truth-testing and the probing. Is she of the tribe? How can we tell if she is of the tribe?? She let herself be on the bad list! Not a good list, a bad list! The list we all agreed was bad! We agreed on it! Nobody in the tribe would assent to be on the bad list unless she was bad too, right? Right? Annie must disavow the list. To prove she is good, she must be made to disavow the list!!

Sarah Hoyt and I have both talked about how this field suffers cognitive dissonance on the question of inclusivity. The field praises itself for being loving and open and kind and wonderful, but I think that’s only the very rose-colored half of it. Because running below the surface is fear. Fear of being found out. Fear of being with the wrong people. Fear of being on the wrong lists, or publishing with the wrong publishers, or even worse, fear of being caught not properly disavowing the people you’re told to disavow. Are you “of the flesh” of Fandom? Are your papers in order? Because we’ve got good evidence that your papers are not in order! And we all know what happens to you if your papers are not in order!!


Your papers???

Here’s George again:

I do not believe in Guilt by Association, and that’s what we’d be doing if we vote against every name on the Puppy slates simply because they are on the slate. That was a classic weapon of the McCarthy Era: first you blacklist the communists, then you blacklist the people who defend the communists and the companies that hire them, then you blacklist the people who defend the people on the blacklist, and on and on, in ever widening circles. No. I won’t be part of that.

If Sad Puppies 3 does nothing else this year, I hope it makes Fandom (all of us, and all of you who tacitly put dividing lines between “us” and “them” without even thinking) take a long, hard look in the mirror. I’ve been a fan (small f) since I was single-digit old. My fandom never had to be proven. There was no club. No rites or rituals or dues. I liked what I liked. Eventually, I got so enthusiastic, I decided to create my own material. People have said they enjoy what I do. Somehow, this seems like it ought to be good enough for me to walk into any con anywhere on the planet and say, “I am here, I belong,” and nobody should bat an eyelash.

The problem is, WSFS doesn’t really work like that. The field as a whole doesn’t work like that.

It claims to want to work like that: no questions asked, all may come.

But all the high drama over the past month, about the “wrong” people getting in the door the “wrong” way and the “wrong” names going on the Hugo ballot from the “wrong” lists, merely reinforces my point. A point Michael Z. Williamson nailed between the eyeballs with his piece he posted a few days back.

Folks, if you want to prove you’re inclusive, loving, embracing, and so forth, do it with action. Not just talk.

If people have to conform to your expectations or your litmus tests before you will accept them, no, you are not inclusive and loving and embracing in the way you think you are. You are loving and inclusive and embracing as long as the newcomers speak and talk and think and have fun just like you.

And that’s a broken way to be, for a thing branding itself WORLD SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION.

So, fix it, or be quiet with all this talk of inclusivity and welcoming new folks. That’s just a party line. The small slights and the noses in the air and the turning away, all of that speaks far louder than your words.

And it’s a big reason why the BIG world of fans (small f) left the little world of Fans (big f) behind. It’s why a little flyover town like Salt Lake City can host a record-breaking 150,000 raving, crazy, adorable fans during three days of glorious fannish mayhem, while Worldcon stamps and harumphs and Fandom people grouse about what’s the best way to bring in new blood.

You do it by not giving a damn if anybody’s papers are in order!

Okay?

Advertisements

282 thoughts on “Sad Puppies 3: were they contacted?

  1. I’ve found it interesting as a Person of Various Nonstandardness myself, that I’ve felt welcome with the SPs and that here I can just say what I honestly think, but over there I need to edit out anything the least bit controversial, and if I say anything outside the approved groupthink, their reaction is that I need to admit my error and re-prove my basis for inclusion.

  2. Hi, thanks for putting up with all the craziness. I like a lot of folks this year am voting for the first time. A couple of days ago I paid my 40$ and got an email from Sasquan saying ok you’re in. What happens next? Do I get emails on where to download the nominated material or do I keep checking their site? Same with voting? Sorry if I missed some obvious piece of info. Is there a faq for the Hugo’s if so I missed it.

  3. I do not believe in Guilt by Association, and that’s what we’d be doing if we vote against every name on the Puppy slates simply because they are on the slate.

    Funny how all the appeal to authority types conveniently leave this part out, whenever brandishing their GRRM fetishes and clucking hysterically.

    Yeah. “Funny,” that.

  4. Yeah, but gaslighting and Disappearances are totally in keeping with the history of the genre, because weird fiction included horror, and horror is all about fear.

  5. ” in point of fact, Vox Day is not on Sad Puppies 3 anywhere.”

    Castalia House, the vanity press that he founded and owns, however, is on SP3 in several categories.

    “I can’t be responsible for what Vox does. Only what I do. ”

    …and what you’ve done is legitimized him. Of course, now that he’s being even more of a raving nutbag than usual, you & the rest of SP3 are backpedalling so hard from association with him that you’re leaving skid-marks. Perhaps you should’ve considered that before giving him your imprimatur.

    Something something dogs something blah blah fleas.

  6. Hey Gridley, welcome in!
    You should get an email on updates from the Worldcon staff when the nomination package becomes available. Remember that everyone working for WC is a volunteer, so things may go slowly. Remember that there is a lot to go through, so sooner one gets started reading things one has not yet read, the better. Some of your local SFF cons may have websites or email lists that give more info.
    It’s always nice to pay the author, but other options are to check your library and used book stores, and to check out the work of the artists on-line.

  7. @keranih: I’ve received notification from PayPal, re: my $40 payment, but have not yet received anything from Sasquan itself. Should I be concerned…?

    Many thanks, in advance!

  8. I’m expecting the Powers-That-Be will be implementing ways to minimize the “Unwashed Supporting” vote. Methods to be determined; I could list some, but I would be deemed as unnecessarily racist.

  9. A quote from a Steven Barnes novel.

    “If you would know the wind watch the grass and the clouds. If you would know a man, watch the difference between his words and his actions.” -Ibandi Proverb

  10. Imagine how unknown all authors would be if people were requried to ask the author for approval to recommend their work to someone else

  11. Rez, we may ask you to defend your positions, but we will never tell you to beg forgiveness for having them. That’s what freedom is about.

  12. …and what you’ve done is legitimized him.

    Brad Torgersen has not legitimized me. Sad Puppies has not legitimized me. Feel free to regard me as entirely illegitimate if you wish. I don’t need Brad’s approval. I don’t need your approval. I don’t require anyone’s approval.

    If we do not publish works of sufficient interest to readers, we will disappear. If we publish works of excellence, we will one day become more dominant than Tor Books. Regardless, we do neither need nor seek “legitimacy”.

  13. Imagine how unknown all authors would be if people were required to ask the author for approval to recommend their work to someone else

    If not for the fascistic, torches-and-pitchforks, “hate requiring” responses of Team TOR and their mouth-breathing CHORF hordes, “telling someone before hand” before nominating them for an award wouldn’t even be necessary in the first place.

    They really need to start giving some thought to an official “look” or uniform, for the players on their side of the field. Preferably something with jodhpurs.

  14. Hey, Wolff: No, Castalia House is not on the ballot. There is no “Publisher” category. There are some works written by writers who are published by Castalia house, including a very good essay, “The Hot Equations,” about the physics of space travel.

    Castalia House pays very good royalties, more so than most of the mainstream houses. So it’s not a vanity press.

    So, what you’re asking for, is a blacklist of anyone who publishes with a particular house, based on the politics of its manager.

    Now, you may not be aware…but DAW books is managed by a card carrying Communist. Shall we all play your game?

    Or, should we be grown ups and treat the works on their merits?

    When you stop lying about us (the nominees mentioned by SP), we’ll continue to tell the truth about you.

    Your actions will dictate what that truth is.

  15. People’s main thrust in repeatedly bringing up the notification issue is to make a point about your (Brad’s) credibility, however, I don’t think a few oversights signify what they have claimed. That’s not a story for me.

    Also, when a fan or author posts a recommendation list, no notice or permission is ordinarily required, however, when the plan is to use your list as a battering ram to enter the supposed stronghold of the opposition, then it makes sense to check whether the authors are on board before embroiling them in controversy. As I understand it, you either did that, or thought someone else had it covered.

    It is a story when nominees distance themselves from SP3 or RP but, again, the story is only the reasons they give for doing so.

  16. Major media needs to be called out repeatedly, again and again, over specific libels and made to issue retractions. This worked with Entertainment Weekly, but Slate and The Atlantic have both committed libel also.

    Libel is publishing falsehood in an effort to defame. Libel is illegal.

    Of course it is libel to print that there are only white males represented.

    But It is also libel to say this is an effort to keep the award away from women and minorities when that is manifestly false, as evidenced by the slates themselves.

    That is against the law also.

    Attack those media for illegally publishing provable falsehoods, thereby committing libel. Do this repeatedly. It forced a retraction from Entertainment Weekly, but this direct and specific charge needs to go against multiple other media outlets making this claim.

    Defamation and libel are specific legal terms for something that is against the law, and those terms need to be invoked specifically with support, repeatedly.

  17. *Googles MZW*

    *Sees laughable images of yet another ammosexual nancyboy hard-man wanna-be, stroking his phallus-replacement.*

    Yeah, totally not surprised. It’s like you guys all come out of Central Casting.

  18. Dear Mr Wolff, please stop being petty. Guilt by association only works on bunnies and bees and other creatures that form a hive. Your chosen method of manipulation others is counterproductive.

  19. So typical. Mike Z responds to argument, Mildew Wolff ignores argument, goes for weak insults. Like we haven’t heard THAT from SJWs a million times before. Is that really the best you’ve got? That’s not even worth making popcorn for.

  20. Vox Day has said some very vile things (and I personally wish that I never have to be exposed to him again) but I will never not vote for a writer because of something their publisher did. That is just backwards thinking there.

    I will agree to disagree on the whole slate thing. I will read and vote for the Hugos. I may use no award but only where I feel there is merit for that choice. There are fine people on this ballot. I am sure I will be overjoyed if a few of them when (I am looking g at you Jim Butcher).

  21. I will never not vote for a writer because of something their publisher did. That is just backwards thinking there.

    Sanity.

    My hat, sir.

  22. Milton Wolff, you are such a pussy. You link Tom Kratman’s website as your own? Seriously? If you don’t have the balls to list your name or your own site, kindly fuck off.

    And yes, you can get to my blog from my screen name.

  23. What Rez said. It is a freeing and refreshing thing to feel that you can say how you feel without immediately having to dive into the trenches to avoid mortar fire.

    It’s more than a little irritating to have your personal experiences, motivations, and opinions casually dismissed, because if you don’t agree with the oppressed victim narrative, then you’ve obviously internalized all the badthink, poor dear, and are acting against your own best interests.

    What they don’t understand is that by standing up and refusing to be either oppressed or a victim, I *am* acting in my own best interest. Being a person of integrity and seeking to be honorable–both in deed and word–is also acting in my own best interest. So is standing up and taking hold of my own fate and destiny, rather than putting all my power and conclusions into someone else’s hands.

  24. You link Tom Kratman’s website as your own?

    Oh, dear.

    Looks as if somebody’s got a Cary Grant-sized man-crush on Our Tom, doesn’t it…? 😉

  25. Up next: Milton swears he is never, ever going to have sex with any of us. Losers.

  26. People need to remember the principles of Metalaw.
    ““Interstellar Golden Rule”: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.”

  27. “This Just In: Milton’s right hand files a restraining order. Film at eleven.”

  28. This series of blog posts by Brad Torgeersen paints a fascinating picture of a man in total meltdown.

    The five stages of grief are in full view (hint: the next stage is depression).

    I almost feel sorry for Brad, because something like this will take years off your life.

  29. @Kent18 – Registration confirmation is all I got, too. The website has a bit more information, but it’s generally along the lines of DUDE CHILL OUT WE ARE WORKING IT.

    All the rights stuff for the works in the nomination package has to be done legally, with contracts and such. It’s gonna take a bit.

  30. Do Authors need to be contacted when you recommend their work? Only if you know that the other side plays dirty.

    …particularly, as MZW pointed out earlier, when the other side is partial to McCarthy-esque blacklists.

  31. “This series of blog posts by Brad Torgeersen paints a fascinating picture of a man in total meltdown.”

    Sure it does, cupcake. Torgersen’s calmed, reasoned posts are ever so much more meltdowny than the screaming irrelevancies of, say, Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

    Shouldn’t you and Uncle Miltie be doing something more productive with your time (e.g., working on your strategy for next year) rather than playing bad community theatre troll parodies? ‘Cause both of you suck at it. I’ve trolled (and been trolled by) the best, and your troll game ain’t shit, son. It’s embarrassingly bad.

    Hey, Hip Young People of Color like Scalzi, Nielsen Hayden, Leckie et al need your support so they can earn all the Hugo Awards that the Evil Old White Men have so unjustly kept far beyond their grasp.

    Every year, those guys play their “Diversity Yay! We are SO DIVERSE!” game, and every year that crew of middle-aged, mostly white, mostly male, hacks racks up yet another Hugo or six.

    You’ve been conned, my sons or daughters. Sorry to break it to you.

  32. @ Milton Wolff
    April 10, 2015 at 11:51 am

    Your McCarthyism is noted. Please attempt aerial fornication with a rotationally transition toroidal pastry.

  33. For the first time I’ve paid my $40 so I can say “I AM WORLDCOM”, and get to vote on the Hugo awards. I need to start reading those works that I have not yet read. I wonder what the SJWs will make of me: 1) older white engineer geeky male who is a registered Republican and 2) I’m gay. I can just see those neurons steaming and smoking on that one: pitchforks out for evil white privileged rethuglican and 2) a gay man, we must welcome him to the table as one of our own.

  34. @ Milton Wolff
    April 10, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    Your blatantly ignorant stereotyping and bigotry is noted. Rather odd coming from the side claiming to defend tolerance, inclusiveness and diversity.

    Also noted is your obsession with genitalia. You should get some counseling for that.

  35. Kevin, considering that the anti-SP crowd has already dismissed assorted minorities and sexualities as all being white Mormon males, I doubt who shares a bed with you is going to make any particular difference.

    (See also the calumnies heaped upon black conservatives by oh-so-inclusive progressives.)

  36. @ imnohbody:

    Yeah, someone should tell Sarah she’s actually a middle-aged Mormon dude. I’d like to watch.

    With a telescope..

    While hiding in a bunker.

  37. ROFL

    Don’t you just love Sarah! I’m glad there is finally a push back on several fronts against the SJWs. You should hear some of the comments I get from some gay men when they find out I’m a conservative. I don’t hide in the conservative closet anymore – and I’m finding that there are a lot more conservative gay men than even I thought were out there.

  38. “Vox Day has said some very vile things”

    Eh… if some people are busy throwing away the best that human civilization has ever produced and someone else has the gall to complain rudely, it’s not the second party I am primarily mad at.

  39. @Doctor Locketopus

    You seem to have assumed that what I wrote was trolling because my view is antithetical to your own. But in fact I’m just calling it like I see it.

    To reiterate, I think that Mr. Torgersen is going to have serious problems when he stops running at 100mph and is able to consider the long-term implications of his actions – both for himself and everyone else. And for that I legitimately pity him.

  40. barzzz: “You seem to have assumed that what I wrote was trolling because my view is antithetical to your own.”

    No, I’m assuming what you wrote was trolling because you are so incredibly bad at it.

    Christopher: I know, and such pitiful ones, too.

  41. *Sees laughable images of yet another ammosexual nancyboy hard-man wanna-be, stroking his phallus-replacement.*

    @Milton Wolff, thanks for taking the time early in the proceedings to completely invalidate all your subsequent statements.

    Truly, I always appreciate it when idiots illuminate themselves in the beginning. Saves me from having to pay them any further attention.

  42. @Doctor Locketopus

    “No, I’m assuming what you wrote was trolling because you are so incredibly bad at it.”

    Well, you have me wrong sir. I don’t know what to say other than: you’re wrong.

    Is there something about what I’m saying that makes it important for you to disregard it as trolling?

    I legitimately 100% feel that Mr. Torgersen is going to have a very difficult time with all of this in the future. And, that said, he did bring it upon himself.

  43. Shasha, you’re on the wrong blog to be trolling Vox. Please take your petty trolling to the right site.

  44. barzz

    A few of us think you’re trolling, even if its concern trolling, because you’re repeating yourself, and you have nothing substantive to add.

    Why would Brad be sorry about his involvement in this? Because he was worried that radical SJW’s would try and damage his career? That they would harass him and his family? I think he took that into consideration before he started this.

    I think the criminals that have libeled him will in the long run be the ones that regret what they’ve done.

  45. “I legitimately 100% feel that Mr. Torgersen is going to have a very difficult time with all of this in the future. And, that said, he did bring it upon himself.”

    I think Mr. Torgersen ought to be incredibly proud, even if the totalitarian killjoys manage to successfully harm his family economically or otherwise as they plainly desire.

    It is clear that we live under a kind of Soviet-Style repression and have been for some time. It is impossible to say whether it is the 1980s or the just the 1940s, i.e. its hard to say how much is ahead and how much is in the rear view mirror. If we aren’t near the end, it is still honorable to stand up against a manifestly bad system.

    One only has to look at the dreck that has been nominated and won in recent years, or the lies and libels that have been dished out primarily from the so-called ‘progressive’ side, to see who is objectively in the right in all this.

    Frankly the angry side should be grateful that someone drawing attention to this corner of the world given the years of declines in their market. The saying goes, there is no such thing as bad press. Most people in America would have lived and died never knowing the Hugos existed were it not for Sad Puppies et al. The Hugos were plainly headed for irrelevance, when all of a sudden they got noticed.

  46. They’re both Marston. Using pseudo-referential, purportedly-amusing name-play is a trademark. I recommend just ignoring it.

  47. Yeah, Marston’s weak attempt at a ‘style’ stands out. He doesn’t like it when you blow his cover, I’ve noticed. *evil grin* Last time, he started ranting about how “Vox sent his wife to try and seduce him”. LOL! Don’t worry, Andrew, we got screenshots before you went back and deleted them. What’s the matter, haven’t found another girl to stalk in your new location?

  48. As someone said, Beale and all the shitty things he said and did “should not be euphemistically tidied away.”

    If you don’t even have the huevos to take this to Day’s blog, where it rightly belongs: what on earth makes you think anyone here is interested in hearing you snivel about it?

  49. so that Shadowdancer can take screenshots and make me look bad?

    Ah! CLAMPS! Gnawed your way through the restraining straps again, eh…?

  50. Amusingly, he won’t actually sent that it’s him either, because he craves the attention and recognition.

  51. Clamps: Walk away. Right now. Go and find some other place to spew your crap.

  52. If I took anything to his blog, he’ll just use it as an excuse to stalk and harass my friends.

    Shorter Clamps: “Because I’m a coward.”

    Heh. “My friends.” That’s cute. Really.

  53. @Sasha Prochenko – you got a problem with what VD does or did, go take it up with him.

    When I have a problem with someone, I don’t go running to other people and tell them to renounce their friends/neighbors/coworkers/cousin’s brothers’ friend’s lawyer/that guy that sat next them on the subway last year/etc or I will hate them forever, I take it up with the person themselves. (Or let it go, but that does take a bit more maturity than I can bring myself to some days.)

    This isn’t the side of the house that does theatrical denunciations for the titillation of the audience. You want to chuck tomatoes at folks for what other people did, that’s on you, not them.

    (PS: Contrary to what you may have been told, Vox Day’s name does not actually have magical powers and constantly invoking him will not act as some sort of anti-SP-cootie repellent. Sorry.)

  54. “What would you say if I told you that one of you idiots posted misogynistic things so that Shadowdancer can take screenshots and make me look bad? Because I’d say that’s fairly classic her.”

    No, that’s classic YOU, Marston. Incompetently try to make yourself look like a victim while your petty little hatred oozes out. It’s the only way you can keep from feeling small and worthless. No one’s buying it. You don’t matter. Go play with some feminists on tumblr or deviantart, maybe they’ll give you the time of day.

  55. Pingback: The Madness of Crowds of Puppies 4/10 | File 770

  56. Man, we’re up to our armpits in trolls, aren’t we?

    Between Milty’s bizarre, unrequited man-crush on Tom Kratman, and Clamps’ Ed Gein-esque twin obsessions with both Shadowdancer and Spacebunny, it’s like an evening of Krafft-Ebing Dinner Theater around here. 😉

  57. Vox has harassed my friends before.

    Your stuffed toys have doubtless endured fare worse, on a nightly basis. They’ll survive.

  58. “Vox stalked and harassed the best humanity has ever produced.”

    LOL. In your fevered dreams! I’ll charitably put John Scalzi in the top half ;-).

  59. I do have a special request though, Clampsy. Can you please go find some stairs and re-enact the Odessa Steps scene from Battleship Potempkin? Make sure you film it!

  60. @Doctor Locketopus

    “No, I don’t.”

    You keep asserting this, but the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    It’s quite a thing to claim that you know what is in another person’s heart, isn’t it? I say again: I know myself, and you’re wrong about me.

  61. @Angus

    “Why would Brad be sorry about his involvement in this? Because he was worried that radical SJW’s would try and damage his career? That they would harass him and his family? I think he took that into consideration before he started this.”

    My feeling is that he didn’t anticipate this quantity of negative coverage.

  62. My friend is just that amazing.

    You’re too easily impressed. Polyvinyl stopped being a “thing” years ago.

  63. I say again: I know myself

    … and have probably been arrested for it, more than once.

  64. “… and have probably been arrested for it, more than once.”

    You are clearly king of the one-liners. Everything else in life, not so much.

  65. You’re all losers. Too chicken to attend a Worldcon. Too chicken to leave your mother’s basements.

    Worldcon will continue without the Hugos. I couldn’t give less of a fuck about the Hugos. I AM happy though that you losers decided to give so much $ to a con you won’t even attend. I’ll be there, partying on your dime. Free drinks. Free food. As there is every year. Just this year, they’ll be a lot more of it.

    Thanks, fuckfaces. I’ll raise a glass to you. We all will. Please do it again every year. In fact, I demand it. I deserve your money more than you losers.

  66. The words of Sam Hat earlier today:

    Quiet down, now, kiddies, cause Daddy’s home.

    Okay, here’s the thing:

    All award competitions and their attendant ceremonies are, and always have been, a joke.

    They are, and always have been, a falsehood… a pretense at meaning.

    From the junior high pep-rally popularly elected MVP to the Hollywood Oscars, they are all as manipulated and rigged as last week’s pro wrasslin’ cham-peen-ship.

    Anyone who believes that they have any meaning whatsoever is
    precisely the type of moron who would actually buy a book or see a movie based upon its having won such an “award”.

    It is an illusion, people.

    So stop fighting over something that doesn’t exist.

    And go *write* something… ya’ lazy, procrastinating, masturbatory, adolescent f*cking trolls *pretending* to be writers!

    Then maybe you’ll win the “award” of a few dollars of my (fairly) hard-earned book-money.

    Maybe.

    PEACE, dammit! Play nice.

    Thank you for your attention.

    Back to your sandboxes.

    – SH

  67. “Please do it again every year. ”

    Oh, they will, cupcake. Count on it. 🙂

    Man, I thought the B-List and C-List troll quality from before was bad, but this guy’s gotta be, what, like the Z-Team? Or maybe some letter from that Dr. Seuss book about the letters that come after Z?

  68. “Also, when a fan or author posts a recommendation list, no notice or permission is ordinarily required, however, when the plan is to use your list as a battering ram to enter the supposed stronghold of the opposition, then it makes sense to check whether the authors are on board before embroiling them in controversy. ”

    Quite right, Mike.

    Normally… there’s no reason to notify anyone. But this isn’t a normal situation because WE ALL KNEW that the side of Inclusion and Light would brutally attack authors who did not publicly disavow and shun all the right people.

    And so did you.

    Because that brutal response is entirely and wholly the responsibility of those who chose to use those tactics, who have been active in attacking people for bad-think or supporting and sheltering those who attack people for bad-think and for insufficiently pledging their tribal membership bonafides. And it’s entirely and wholly predictable by anyone with a brain.

    I applaud any author who was strong willed enough to face the ravening hordes. It takes a great deal of bravery, particularly for the small fry starting out.

  69. “I legitimately 100% feel that Mr. Torgersen is going to have a very difficult time with all of this in the future. And, that said, he did bring it upon himself.”

    Yes, we KNOW. We know that “bring it upon yourself” is the excuse used by people to justify their own freely chosen behavior. Because really… there are no *consequences* to this that are not manufactured by people who believe they’re a good person by undertaking the McCarthyist tactics of guilt by association and attacking people’s livelihoods. If they can make it risky enough to have certain ideas by impacting people’s ability to do business, people will self-censor.

    But the funniest thing really is how many people are catching on that the ones most likely to do the attacking are the ones with no other avenue for status within a community. Mr. Martin says some thoughtful and important things and the snappy little fellows show up, ignore George entirely, and start spouting “ammosexual” and similar vapid insults and implications that the behavior they don’t like will lead to retaliation… as if retaliation is a natural, inevitable process.

    But go for it boys. Because you’re right. This IS a valid way to gain status in your chosen social sphere.

  70. Really… did the “insult” ammosexual ever, even once in the History of the Planet elicit even a twinge of hurt feelings? ‘Is why I scare quoted “insult”. I know I get the giggles.

    Also… I need more ammo.

  71. Okay, the trolls are finally arriving.
    The legit trolls, not Chris Gerrib, who seems to be at least trying to come up with a coherent argument.
    Barzzz seems to think that Brad Torgerson is an idiot. Yes, he probably didn’t anticipate that the tor.com crowd would bring in the Atlantic, but honestly, that’s not going to mess him up.
    Why? Because Torgerson publishes with Baen, and Baen don’t care.
    Lord Monte seems to think that we’re inclined to listen to accusations of cowardice from people without even a blog link on their userlnames.
    Frank Watson seems to think that Torgerson, et. al., don’t write anything. Projection, much?
    Clamps, in the meantime, continues to prove that he is a monomaniac on the subject of Vox Day.
    Milton Wolff seems to think that the pictures of Michael Z. Williamson on his Wikipedia page are representative of how he rolls.

  72. @ Lord Monte IV — Your expletive laden diatribe illustrates your level of civilization, beneath the level of, oh, Theodore Beale.

    But your fellow warrior Arthur Chu holds the record I believe, for the most different people attacked with expletive-laden tirades in a 24-hour period.

    C’mon people, you are supposed to represent the side of doubleplusgoodness. Step it up!

  73. “Because Torgerson publishes with Baen, and Baen don’t care.”

    Baen is the honey badger of publishers.

  74. It’s entirely accurate that if I published with anyone other than Baen, I probably could not do this. No way. Most of the other publishers’ editors all came out of TruFandom, and right now TruFandom’s self-selected mouthpieces are very unhappy with me. Toni Weisskopf can run rings around most TruFans — in the more fannish than thou challenge — but she doesn’t concern herself when her boys are doing some principled tilting at the CHORF windmills. All Toni asks is that we try to keep it civil. She was seeing all the same problems Larry and I have identified, long before Larry and I were even Baen guys.

    Probably what happens to me after 2015 is . . . Baen buys the books Toni already knows I am writing, I keep putting stories into IGMS and Analog, I keep getting anthology invites, and nothing measurable (except sales) occurs to my publishing career. Likewise, nobody at LTUE or SLC Comic Con or Libertycon is going to give a crap that I made the self-designated guardians — of Hugo awards propriety — froth at the mouth. They might even cheer us. Lord knows I got tons of handshakes and back slaps at LTUE earlier this year.

    The CHORFs think the rest of the fan universe does not matter, and does not exist.

    BAEN (and Toni, and my several other editors) all look at the rest of the fan universe, and see dollar signs.

    As for the Arthur Chu nerd fight borking by the anti-GamerGaters . . . Never in this field has there been a sloppier, more error-laden and easily debunked small-potatoes hit job. That entire media circus merely earned Larry and I top news cycle space on all the major conservative media outlets who cared to watch. The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, and The National Review. And they were all spraying rootbeer out their noses at what gullible tools Salon and so many other reliably liberal media tabloids are.

    It was such an inept clown show of spoon-fed, no-fact-checking, yellow journalism, all those outlets did was further cement (for the minds of the non-progressive public) that progressive media in America is just that much more of a collective moron mind hole.

    Meanwhile, I gained hundreds of new FB friends, my Amazon rank went into and continues to stay in orbit, I have fans and professionals alike quietly contacting me to say, “This is so overdue, thank you for standing up,” and I get to carry on with my normal life (beyond the batcave job) more or less per usual.

    So, no, I don’t worry about my future.

    It’s as bright as it’s ever been. Because you don’t have to appease CHORFs to be successful in this business.

  75. @Dan Say what you want, as long as you give me your money. Seriously. Give me $40 of free food and drinks. Now. And get your internet buddies to do the same. Now.
    You’re fighting the good fight, remember? The world needs you. I need you. To party. Or to save the planet. To right wrongs. Or whatever. Your cause is super important. Don’t be cheap, Dan. Please tell us you’ve paid your dues. Seriously — please confirm you’ve paid the $40. I want it.

  76. Brad, I would like to thank you for spearheading this movement. Who gets what award is very, very important to mankind.
    Everyone should give $40 so they can vote in the Hugos. I’m not sure what it takes to win an Oscar, but I respectfully submit that be where you and Vox set your sights next. Along the way, you can both tell us all about your books, your publisher, upcoming projects, and where we can buy your books to give you money.
    You and Vox are selfless men, and deserve to be richly rewarded. I’m glad Vox nominated himself for a Hugo so we can reward him thusly. I am also glad you have books coming out, so you may in no small way profit from your selfless activity righting a very major wrong. And continuing to right it. And dragging on the issue for months and months, years and years. Selflessly. Because you care about this issue so much, and for no other reason.
    I can tell how much you care about the Hugos from all the Hugo Awards you’ve been to in the past. You are a massive fan of Sci-Fi. You indeed live and bleed fandom. Always have. Vox, as well.
    Thank you for protecting us from ourselves. If Sir Isaac Asimov were alive today, he’d no doubt be shaking your hand vigorously, frequenting your blog often, buying all your books, and voting for you and Vox when you nominate yourselves for Hugos.

  77. Greg: that’s approaching what I’d call C+ level. At least it’s better than the guy who imagines us getting upset because he’s scarfing a few chips that might have been partially funded by supporting memberships.

    The “Sir Isaac Asimov” gambit loses you major points, though. That’s like a 1997-98 trolling tactic. This is 2015. You’re going to have to step up your game if you want to roll with the big dogs.

    Try harder next time, buddy.

  78. Given that Andrew Marston (AKA Sasha Prochenko, Clamps, Alauda, and dozens of other aliases, all moronic) has been obsessively stalking Shadowdancer for many years, it’s very likely that he knows that she cannot respond to his lies about her here …

    … because she is too busy arranging the funeral of her 11-week-old son.

    Marston, you are a moral cripple. There are flyblown cowpats that are better human beings than you. You are evil. You are scum. You have less morals than a starving rabid wolverine has table manners. Go away and stay away.

  79. A reminder, gents: trolls feed on attention and recognition. Don’t feed the trolls. If you feel the need to refer to them, do so in the third person.

  80. He’s right, the money for the Fan Lounge will be welcome. I’ve seen a few people suggesting an open bar…

    What I’m not clear about is how you game the instant runoff though without explicitly telling your entire group how to vote for each person. Going to be interesting to see the numbers when the hit the wall in Spokane.

    Still, you seem bright, you’ll figure it out I’m sure…

  81. Dude, I won’t angry if they serve king crab and filet mignon, and hand everyone a free bottle of Dom at the door along with a complementary authentic Napoleonic saber for opening purposes.

    As for “gaming” the final ballot, I’m pretty sure the No Award contingent already has that under control. Or so they imagine.

  82. besides, if the SP voters were the lockstep-voters out to destroy the Hugo awards that they claim us to be, doing something as simple as calculating out who to have vote in what order would be a trivial thing (and if te works were so bad that nobody else voted for them, such a plan could even work)

    But there will be other voters. Remember the surprise last year when some people actually read Larry’s book and posted how they were amazed that it was actually a really good book?

  83. You are clearly king of the one-liners. Everything else in life, not so much.

    Whatever pouty, protective little fiction helps you to feel marginally less inadequate and alone come bedtime, moppet.

    You have no clue.

  84. Too chicken to attend a Worldcon.

    Shyeah, right. Because between the mandatory Comanche-style knife fights versus Connie Willis in the gladiatorial pits, and having to heft Seanan McGuire cleanly over your head before being allowed through the Gauntlet of Chains on your way to the breakfast bar, Worldcon is just one long, adrenalized challenge of thrills, spills and danger. Eat your animal crackers.

    Man, I thought the B-List and C-List troll quality from before was bad, but this guy’s gotta be, what, like the Z-Team?

    Heh. 😉 “Too chicken to attend a Worldcon.” At least award him half a point for sheer desperation, if nothing else.

  85. Meanwhile, I gained hundreds of new FB friends, my Amazon rank went into and continues to stay in orbit, I have fans and professionals alike quietly contacting me to say, “This is so overdue, thank you for standing up,” and I get to carry on with my normal life (beyond the batcave job) more or less per usual.

    So, no, I don’t worry about my future.

    Excellent! 😉 Living better than any of them do, Brad — financially at ease, doing whatever it is we love best, surrounded by those we most cherish and adore — is, I’ve found, the longest-lasting and most soul-satisfying daily acknowledgement that yours is the correctly chosen path.

    Let the little ankle-nippers howl and moan all they like, outside your bedroom window at night. It helps to make for the sleep of the just. 😉

  86. I liked the comment that the awards will probably be completely overhauled for 2016…. Hysterical…

  87. For being ‘Progressive’, they do like repeating history.
    They want to disenfranchise a group that’s ‘troublesome’. Let’s see:
    Increase the Poll Tax (no Supporting vote, Attending only) is at the top of their list.
    Given their apparent insistence on Trufan Purity, I suppose a Literacy Test would be included, too.
    Or, they could ‘Compromise’, and count Attending votes at, oh, 60% of a Trufan vote.

  88. Well, to be fair that is how it used to be so that would be a conservative thing to do. Even then it can’t be done for 2016…

    I could back a literacy test and maybe a taste test as being a required before voting.

  89. What really amuses me about this is that it’s pretty much the same conversations we were having several years ago with the angst ridden book bloggers who felt that it was too conservative and didn’t have enough diversity… Then I’m told it’s the other way around. Well, what you going to do eh? Me? I go to the WorldCon whether there are Hugo’s or not.

  90. I could back a literacy test

    If we ever applied one of those to writers, we could wipe out “urban fantasy” as a genre category almost completely. 😉

  91. Today’s installment of the 24-hour Hate:

    “Undead for 2015 ‏@AaronPound · 12h12 hours ago
    I think Torgersen is realizing that he may be the person blamed for ruining the Hugos as Correia’s useful idiot.”

    I read this after Brad’s comment above. I smiled.

    “Straight White Dude ‏@RedConversation · 13h13 hours ago
    All wikipedia says about Brad R. Torgersen is that he won the WOTF story contest in 2009, which was started by L. Ron Hubbard. Curious.”

    Yes, they’re pursuing the Scientology angle. Will every single WOTF winner be subjected to this scrutiny now? I rather doubt it.

    Straws. Nothing but straws.

  92. They’ve clutched enough straw to build a Straw Brad. To stand alongside Straw Larry, I suppose.

  93. I wouldn’t have an issue with getting rid of Urban Fantasy…. Can’t stand it personally. Then again I’m not a big MilSF fan either. Most of my favorite authors aren’t getting Hugo’s nor love from Puppies so who speaks for me eh?

  94. @Daveon: Did you participate in Brad’s open discussions, in this forum, re: debating which works might be included on the Sad Puppies slate?

  95. “Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin · 39m39 minutes ago
    I haven’t read Torgersen’s work, but I’m getting the idea that his books similarly depend on a pro-Christian message slant for much appeal.”

    Well, Ms. Erin, they have things called libraries now. You can check out The Chaplain’s War and see for yourself without having to give your money to the icky nasty Torgersen man.

    BTW, this is the third straight day of her endlessly ranting about Sad Puppies.

  96. Nope. Didn’t agree with a slate then. Don’t agree now. Don’t think much of writers doing the whole ‘me! Me! ME!’ Thing either.

    I’m on record with my issues with a slate over a recommendations list anyway. Put more recommendations out than there are slots for each category and I have no issue. Put something up that somebody could just follow without doing their own Due Dilligence and that’s a problem for me. Still is. Always will be. Whether the puppies are Sad, Rabid, have distemper or giardhia.

    I’m an individual. I spend about $1-$2k every couple of years to go to a Worldcon and if people want to play silly bastards over the purity of the Hugo’s then so be it. I’ll be at some room party getting drunk. I did go to the ceremony in 2011, hated it.

    Do I think people get left off? Hell yes. But I don’t see Alastair Reynolds or Neal Asher whining about it.

  97. C’mon Greg & Mortey, are you guys really the best trolls available? Your game is horrible. Tag out and send in the C-team.

    I’ll actually find it amusing that part of my money will contribute to Mortey getting fatter on bar chips. Shorten that miserable lifespan, dude!

  98. “They are — in terms you’ll best be able to appreciate — the Cersei Lannisters of SF fandom.

    And now it’s time for their penance walk.”

    The thread, she is won.

  99. Did you participate in Brad’s open discussions, in this forum, re: debating which works might be included on the Sad Puppies slate?

    Nope.

    [::shrugs::] Noble Iconoclast vs. Effective Participant. Only you can choose which is the correct way for you, personally.

    I don’t adjudge either one to be inherently better or more “right” than the other. You pays your money, and you dances your dance.

  100. “Alexandra Erin ‏@alexandraerin · 39m39 minutes ago
    I haven’t read Torgersen’s work, but I’m getting the idea

    It’ll die of loneliness, if so.

    Alexandra Erin.

    Oh, dear.

  101. An inordinate number of players on the opposing team appear to be sour, doughy white women.

    Some sort of causal link between carbohydrates and a swollen sense of entitlement, perhaps…?

  102. Yes, they’re pursuing the Scientology angle. Will every single WOTF winner be subjected to this scrutiny now? I rather doubt it.

    Oh, that’s easy. Jim C. Hines is a WOTF winner, too.

  103. “Noble Iconoclast vs. Effective Participant”

    Well, one of the reasons I’m annoyed with the Puppies, Sad, Rabid or otherwise is that until this year, I felt I was an effective participant, even in years I didn’t nominate very much there was stuff I could get around to voting for. I’m estimating I’ve had a 50% nomination rate over the last decade, albeit not in every category, because frankly there are a lot that I have no opinion on and generally vote No Award anyway… editor? Like I can tell.

    I’ve been less effective at picking winners though. But generally speaking I don’t think that has been too bad.

    I have criteria, generally must be original, no Book X of Y, no Urban Fantasy(*), limited Fantasy, no series. And looking back at the last decade or so, that hasn’t presented me with much of a problem until this year where I have a field of 2 to pick from and given that Amazon describes one of them as like Old Man’s War which I found to be a fairly pedestrian MilSF novel, let’s say I’m feeling inclined towards the No Award across the board idea.

  104. And yes, I pays my money – Sasquan will be the thick end of $1,500 I suspect, Loncon was probably over $3,500 all told given I flew in a modicum of comfort. But I go for the panels, the programme, the parties and the happy feeling I get when I get home, actually read the programme book properly and realize how much I didn’t get around to seeing because I was enjoying myself too much.

  105. If politics didn’t matter it would be a wash – so why do it? Obviously this is vote-buying.

  106. Don’t turn this into a pissing contest, re: stalking and terrorizing helpless, married Asian women online, Clamps. That’s one you’ll “win,” twelve times out of every ten.

    Vamanos… and take your pillow-bride with you.

  107. If — as is true of all artists — 95% of creative writers are liberals, then, mathematically speaking, what % of writing awards will go to liberals?
    My math isn’t so good, Brad. Can you assist?
    The awards should be split 50/50 with conservatives, right? Conservatives like yourself? Who wait for the award with open arms? Mouth salivating? There are lots of conservatives in SF/F, right Brad? It’s not just you and Vox we have to choose from? Such an absence is not the reason Vox nominated himself in two categories? It’s not the reason you yourself call “hear, hear!” when Vox demands more Hugos go to conservatives?
    I went to an investment banking award ceremony the other day. A conservative won. I immediately smelled a conspiracy. Brad, please help me right that wrong as well. Lead us please, our selfless saviour.

  108. Worldcon does require a certain amount of bravery. You have to face the decision of whether or not to ship stuff home, and you have to kick yourself for years afterward for not buying that original Andre Norton cover painting even if you would have had trouble making the rent.

    Also, you have to bring a really comfy pair of shoes. I got plantar fascitis from overdoing it at Boston, because I thought hard shoes would look nicer. Sigh. Be wiser than that.

    But I find that West Coast conventions are less insular than East Coast conventions, even though West Coast people have more of a tendency to make their politics obvious. West Coast people at least know there are other opinions, which is why they make such a point of their own.

    Southern conventions are more fun, period, although Canadian conventions are also pretty fun.

  109. Report him, if so, and if you have any evidence whatsoever.

    That’s it, then? That’s your ringing defense for remorselessly hounding a blameless young woman, whose only “crime” was not wanting to have anything to do with you?

    Pfeh. You’ll end your days alone, and unmourned. The only mark of your passing, here in this world, will be a damp little squib in the Online Sex Offender Registry. Doubtless, you sleep on rubber sheets.

    You’re soiled. Bent.

    In civilized countries, things like you are kept in straw-filled cages.

  110. “If — as is true of all artists — 95% of creative writers are liberals,”

    Stopped reading at the first lie.

    Sorry.

  111. suburbanbanshee: Merrill’s are my choice for SF conventions, Mephestos for formal tech ones if you’re going to be walking 15-20 miles a day. Spokane does look like there will be a lot of walking, but possibly not remotely as much as London.

  112. “I felt I was an effective participant, even in years I didn’t nominate very much there was stuff I could get around to voting for. ”

    So your argument is “I couldn’t be bothered to vote, but now I’m all butthurt because somebody else did, and they voted for stuff that I didn’t like.”

    Ooooo-kay.

  113. Shadowdancer isn’t blameless.

    [::nods::] All sociopaths feel that way, I understand. Something… predatory in their makeup. Something cunning, and low, and entirely, amorally centered upon the self.

    You’re like a nervous, fledgling version of Albert Fish, only without the grey, starched dignity.

    No one allows their children to spend any time alone with you, ever. What that must feel like.

  114. While you either ignore the abuses Vox heaps on others or defend them.

    “Report him, if so, and if you have any evidence whatsoever.

    Less than half a hour ago.

    You read like you write.

  115. “So your argument is”

    No.

    ” “I couldn’t be bothered to vote, but now I’m all butthurt because somebody else did, and they voted for stuff that I didn’t like.””

    Couple of things. Nominating and Voting are two different things – we are agreed there? I’m ‘butthurt’ that the nominating process has been stuffed up which means that the things I get to vote for are stuffed up. To whit: Book 2 of a trilogy, a Fantasy, a MilSF novel that Amazon tells me is like something I didn’t like, Book 1 in a new series following on from another series, and Book 15 in an ongoing series I stopped reading around Book 2 or 3. Obviously what we think is a good set of nominees differs there.

    In years where I hadn’t read enough to nominate, you know real life does get in the way even of reading some years, the items on the ballot always, generally met my personal criteria as set out above i.e. Original Stuff not a series etc… in fact, in the last decade, I have had something like a 50% ‘success’ rate in seeing things I nominate or liked going on the ballot.

    However, in the vote… that’s a different thing entirely. Looking at 7 years I’ve voted over the last decade I have voted for exactly 1 winner.

    Until now, that’s hasn’t actually bothered me, much. Apparently other people get very ‘butthurt’ about not getting their way in the nominations and the vote. A few years ago it was the Book Bloggers wanting diversity and literary merit in the Hugos and now its the Puppies wanting something else.

  116. “I’m ‘butthurt’ that the nominating process has been stuffed up which means that the things I get to vote for are stuffed up.”

    But you didn’t vote in the nomination round, even though you were allowed to?

    Yeah. Whatever, dude.

  117. Kent – I’d bet good money that the troll is already fat enough; feeding him is, at best, a cruelty to his health.

    Greg – It’s rather amazing the conclusions one can reach with a false premise.

  118. I actually reported his blog to Google and they did nothing.

    Then your “evidence” — such as/whatever it might have been — was insufficient to convince a disinterested outside observer.

    Complaints against you and your… behavior… on the other hand, have proved markedly more efficacious.

    And the moral of this story is…?

  119. There have been years I have not nominated for the Hugos even though I was allowed to. You are correct.

    I’m running a startup at the moment and frankly have had little time to read, and I don’t nominate stuff I haven’t read. Up until now that has never left me with a slate to vote on that was crap… this is the first, and yes, I do shoulder some blame on that.

    Which is why, having practically made up my mind not to go, even though it’s literally just down the road, I’ve just sprung for a grand for flights, membership and a decent hotel room at the Davenport. So something good came of all this crap, I get to go to the convention, I get to vote, I get to go to the WSFS business meeting (assuming I can get up) and I get to do the program items I’d been asked to do.

  120. If — as is true of all artists — 95% of creative writers are liberals, then, mathematically speaking, what % of writing awards will go to liberals?

    Wow, the hypocrisy is strong with this one. Isn’t the whole point of the SJW crusade that diversity is awesome? Isn’t that what we are constantly told? SP goes and provides a turly diverse reading list across all kinds of diversity. The SJW side does not.

  121. “Up until now that has never left me with a slate to vote on that was crap”

    How did you reach this determination?

    Maybe you should try, oh, I don’t know, actually reading some of the books before deciding that they’re all “crap”.

  122. Dave on – Have you not read the slate and maligned it dishonestly, or have you read it and determined it to be crap?

  123. Kent – I’d bet good money that the troll is already fat enough; feeding him is, at best, a cruelty to his health.

    Fair enough. I certainly can’t inflict any crueler or more stinging crack of the psychic lash upon him than genetics, the American medical establishment, and the increasingly frayed forbearance of his own poor, beleaguered caregivers are already administering, on a daily basis.

  124. I have stated my criteria for voting something for a Hugo.

    Original works, preferably of SF because I’m a BIG Space Opera or Hard SF kinda person.

    I don’t vote for a book in a series, doesn’t matter if it’s Butcher or Pratchett. I can’t stand Urban Fantasy (there have been some exceptions but they’re few and far between). I don’t vote Book X of Y – I include trilogies in that, and that excludes Ancillary Sword which I liked but it doesn’t do anything new. Finally, I am really not a big Fantasy person either – I like Hard SF, Space Operas and singularity/cyberpunk/near future stuff (whatever you want to call it).

    Looking at the list we have a book in an ongoing series that I stopped reading at book 2. We have book 2 in a trilogy, and while I liked book 1, book 2 was nothing amazing, albeit a slightly better story. We have Book 1 in a series that follows on from another series.

    That leaves me two options, a fantasy, which I will read, and an SF novel that Amazon compares to Old Man’s War. Frankly, I didn’t think much of Old Man’s War myself so that’s hardly making me feel well disposed to it.

    So, from the point of view of a set of nominations that meets my criteria, and yes, that’s my criteria and mine alone, it’s crap. As bad, frankly, as 2012 but I didn’t go in 2012 because I was saving my money for 2013.

  125. I mean I _include_ Sword in that group, I will not be voting for it for the Hugo even though I suspect it will win this year…

    But, bear in mind my track record of 1 in 7 in calling Hugo Best Novel.

  126. Dave on – So your set of criteria discounts somewhere around… 90% of eligible title before you even take quality into account? I fail to see what anyone would even be bothered to consider that as relevant to the whole process. The only kinds of soda I like are Dr. Pepper, Root beer, and ginger ale.. I don’t walk into the beverage aisle of the local grocery and expect them to cater to that taste. I’m simple not narcissistic enough for that.

  127. “Why does being on a list force any author, artist, or editor, to have to explain anything?”

    The reason you should have felt compelled to contact everyone on your slate is because you used them in a politicized campaign whose heated rhetoric has often been about sticking it to “social justice warriors.” Some prospective nominees may not have wanted to associate with that rhetoric.

    If the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies rhetoric was only positive — “these are the works we loved from 2014 and we hope you’ll read them and support their nomination because they might otherwise be ignored” — I don’t think anyone would expect you to get permission from your nominees.

  128. From now on, I think my criteria are going to be “uses the color #800000 somewhere on the cover, and the author’s name must contain the letters ‘q’, ‘z’, and a silent ‘m'”.

    Anything that doesn’t fit those criteria?

    Crap.

  129. “I don’t think anyone would expect you to get permission from your nominees”

    Nonsense.

    Other than that, great point.

  130. Anything that doesn’t fit those criteria?

    Crap.

    From now on, MY criteria will involve photos of a naked Salma Hayek on the cover.

    I’m a demanding audience, granted… but, ultimately, a fair one. 😉

  131. Let’s look back at 2014 and apply Daveon’s criteria, shall we?

    Ancillary Justice — part of a series
    Neptune’s Brood — part of a series
    Parasite — part of a series
    The Wheel of Time — (yeah, I don’t even need to say it, do I?)
    The Dark Between the Stars — part of a series
    Warbound — part of a series
    The Goblin Emperor — not SF

    Non-“crap” books in 2014: zero

  132. So your set of criteria discounts somewhere around… 90% of eligible title before you even take quality into account?

    Actually, looking at the last decade, it usually discounts 40% of the options i.e. 2 of 5 do not fit my personal rules. That doesn’t seem too extreme, and some years if there’s a big ‘buzz’ I might break the rules and read something outside of there, but thus far none of them have made it above No Award in my ballot.

    And as I said, before this year, the worst this has left me with is 2 books – last year as it happens. But looking at the last decade I’ve been going to/voting in Worldcons I have:
    2005 – 5/5 – and I’m still ‘butthurt’ about that result
    2006 – 4/5
    2007 – 3/5 but I did read all 5 and I just realized I’m wrong, I’ve had 2 winners… Rainbows End
    2008 – 5/5
    2009 – 3/5
    2010 – 5/6
    2011 – 3/5 – NB: I did break my rules because I voted for and ranked the Zombie book because I found I liked it… I have discounted all the subsequent ones….
    2012 – 3/5
    2013 – 3/5 – did read the Fantasy, as I probably will do this year, didn’t like, actually didn’t like any of them
    2014 – 2/5 – Only saved by those 2 easily being the best 2 books I read that year and I did vote for my second winner

    So actually, it’s really only last year and this year my guidelines have been a problem….

  133. I read just as a stand alone, didn’t know there would be a sequel at the time, will not be voting for it even though I liked it more than the original.

    Is Neptune’s Brood actually a series? It’s in the same universe yes. It has no contiguous characters and stands completely alone as a novel. Can you say the same about the start of the next Kevin Andersen series?

  134. But to be clear, yeah, last year was a problem, across the board. I wonder what changed from previous years eh?

  135. Hmmm… thinking about that though, yes, you’ve got me on 2014 – you are 100% correct. I should have voted No Award. As I said, I wonder what changed then?

  136. ” I wonder what changed from previous years eh?”

    Sorry, you don’t get to blame Leckie and Stross on Larry Correia.

    Your idiosyncratic “guidelines” may be a problem for you, but I fail to see why any one else should pay attention to them, any more than my ##800000qmz rule or Kent18’s Salma Hayek rule.

  137. Well up until 2 years ago my personal criteria weren’t an issue because the nomination process seemed to generally yield a fairly balanced and decent set of options. Now it doesn’t. And yes, in case you were curious, yeah, I do blame you guys for that, it’s just weird seeing the effect in numbers like that.

  138. Oh and actually, and yes, you can slam me for being inconsistent here, I did nominate Stross and Leckie – I also nominated Banks (although I don’t think he was actually eligible) and Peter Hamilton for a rare standalone book and I did twist my rules to nominate Lauren Beukes Time Travel Serial Killer novel Shining Girls which I really rated but didn’t get on the ballot because of Larry and f’king Wheel of Time.

    So you have me, I nominated 4 space operas, one of which did share a universe with a previous novel and, in my albeit crappy defense, one I didn’t know was part of a trilogy, and 1 time travel crime thriller which was great.

  139. Where “fairly balanced and decent” is equated with “fits my bizarro guidelines”?

    You just make up your own definitions for words as you go along, don’t you?

  140. No it fits my guidelines. Mine and mine alone. I vote for what I want to under the criteria I get to decide.

    Assuming that you’re not going to be told how to rank the options on the ballot I assume you will do some variant of the same? Or are you waiting to be told what order you should vote in or something???

  141. I do find the irony of a Sad Puppy complaining that I’m using an arbitrary and completely made up set of criteria of my own creation to define what I like as more than a bit amusing 🙂

  142. “No it fits my guidelines. Mine and mine alone. I vote for what I want to under the criteria I get to decide.”

    Me too. And I want a better-than-zero chance for my nominees to make the ballot because other individuals with their idiosyncratic criteria also voted for it. That’s why I hate bloc voting. It helped me to my first 0-out-of-80 on a Hugo ballot since I began participating in 2008.

    As a voter I also am partial to books that are not part X of a series, but I’m cool with book 1.

  143. I don’t think we need Clamps here spewing his garbage about Shadowdancer, do we? Especially right now?

  144. Damien again. Note: he has blocked me, but I still see posts of his that are retweeted.

    “Brad Torgersen admits his self serving motives https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/sad-puppies-3-were-they-contacted/#comment-9929 … “my Amazon rank went into and continues to stay in orbit”

    Yes, Damo. Brad subjected himself, his friends and family to a firestorm of abuse on the chance that he *might* benefit.

    Thanks for reading the blog, Damien. Brad appreciates the traffic. 🙂

  145. Let me make sure if I understand this correctly. Vox Day, having been harassed by Clamps over an extended period of time, links twice to a friend of Clamps youtube videos.
    This is, somehow, on the scale of the nonsense Clamps has pulled?

  146. Let us not forget that the woman who is mourning has been one of Clamps’ victims as well.

    Do yourself a favor, Andrew. Walk away. Come back later with your nonsense. We’re not in the mood, not now. Else may you find mercy in the same degree that you’ve shown it.

  147. “I do find the irony of a Sad Puppy complaining that I’m using an arbitrary and completely made up set of criteria of my own creation to define what I like as more than a bit amusing ”

    This doesn’t even make sense, dude. Did it make sense to you when you wrote it?

    I fully agree that you’re free to vote however you want. Throw darts. Flip coins. Knock yourself out.

    What I fail to understand is why you think anyone else is going to care, or give your “guidelines” any credence, or why you think “balanced” and “decent” are synonyms for “stuff I like”. They aren’t, actually.

  148. ” And I want a better-than-zero chance for my nominees to make the ballot because other individuals with their idiosyncratic criteria also voted for it. ”

    Your desires count exactly as much those of any other member of the con. You’re disappointed with the outcome this year. I’m disappointed when junk like Redshirts wins. I lived through the tragedy, and so will you. Get over it.

  149. I’m amused by the haters on Twitter going through the big Baen authors. They’ve moved through Brad and Larry, now they’re after Sarah. I suppose Mike and Tom are next up. Bujold is probably immune, but I did notice one chick swearing not to read her new Vorkosigan novel because she found out about Watch on the Rhine.

  150. So Vox e-mailed her and told her the truth–which is not harassment, although it might be rumor-mongering–and one of his commenters decided to be a psychopathic little jerk.
    I trust, given that you’re carping about this, that he didn’t delete the comment and banish the fellow from his site.
    This is still not comparable to stalking people for years on end on the crazy scale.

  151. You guys really aren’t helping by replying to him.

    Daveon – No, we’re criticizing your use of “crap” as a description to describe books that don’t meet your arbitrary criteria. There’s a difference between taste and quality, so… thanks for illustrating just why we aren’t taking detractors seriously.

  152. With all due respect, given how often things Vox Day (who is a jerk) is accused of doing and saying that turn out to be out of context or not at all what was said, (and given the source) forgive me if I don’t believe you after the first subordinate clause.

  153. GRRM (who has actually been fairly reasonable in this overall, given his personal politics) breaks out the “You must denounce Vox Day and all his works” card.

    How about you denounce the Nielsen Haydens, George? They’ve been spouting rhetoric every bit as vile and inflammatory as Vox’s, and they’ve been doing it for decades. With them it’s arguably worse. Until recently, Vox was just some guy on the internet, while they are (or were, in Teresa’s case) highly-ranked editors for a major publisher.

    I suspect GRRM is well aware of this, and is simply choosing to ignore it. If not, I’m sure James May would be happy to provide plenty of cites. 🙂

    The SJWs are big on this “privilege” and “you must not punch down” business, but somehow it never applies to their privileged positions.

  154. Never throw “compared to what?” at an SJW. It confuses them. They first become afraid and then enraged. They’re already on a knife’s edge what with the fear of the white cisheteropatriarchy and all. Their safe space is as fragile as their sanity and ability to grasp the meaning of words. To me they’re like soldier ants who routinely pie-chart a swath of jungle and then eat everything – especially Martin.

  155. Being an SJW is exciting and taxing work as they strain the fibers of their redneck conformism to emulate Oscar Wilde and create ha-ha funny ironic ironical new categories for the Hugos:

    “Cora Buhlert retweeted Beth Bernobich @beth_bernobich · 2h 2 hours ago Though talk about politics. Stories that erase women and minorities, or relegate them to stereotypes? Booooring.”

    “Cora Buhlert retweeted N. K. Jemisin @nkjemisin · 11h 11 hours ago Best Inadvertent Genocide of A Group By Erasure From Utopian Pan-Global Future #NewHugoCategories”

    “Cora Buhlert retweeted Kate Elliott @KateElliottSFF · 4h 4 hours ago #newHugocategories Best milSF with a crew actually as diverse as the ship my son is currently serving on in the Navy”

    “Cora Buhlert retweeted Dark Matters @DarkMattersProj · Apr 10 #newHugocategories Oustanding White Saviour To Alien Race That Bears An Obvious Resemblance To A Race That IRL White People Tried To Conquer”

    “Cora Buhlert retweeted Joyce Chng (JDamask) @jolantru · 22h 22 hours ago Comment: weird that people think the Chinese is a monolithic race.”

    I love that last one because these are the retards who talk about 500 million white men as if they are twins. KKK humor is very amusing. It’s like watching a dog shit in the rain.

  156. If it weren’t for your oppression, clamps, would you even exist? Do you know why few people care very much about Vox? Because they haven’t invited him to live inside their heads, 24/7, and haven’t made him the entire center of their existences. You clearly have done so. Find something to invite inside your head that isn’t another person.. get a hobby… gush about something you like… learn something new in meat space. It’s spring. Get outside and grow something.

  157. Mary Robinette Kowal is offering to buy supporting membership to WorldCon for people who cannot afford them. She offered 10, but since then other people (Ellen Klage and several anonymous Hugo nominees, at least some of which were in the SP list) have joined the offer, so now there are 55 memberships.

    Kowal has said that since those memberships will be able to nominate next year she’ll refuse any nomination she may get in 2016.

    I can afford a membership, but if anyone here would like to have one but can’t for economical reasons I think that it’s only fair that some of them go to people sympathetic with SP, particularly since some of them are paid by SP authors.

    If you go there please be civil. Kowal has shown a tolerant attitude during this time of insults and lies.
    http://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/talk-with-me-about-being-a-fan-of-science-fiction-and-fantasy/

  158. If they’re anonymous how do you know they’re on the SP list? Are you sure they’re not the King of Prussia?

    I’m kinda busy right now. Would you pick up one of those membership things for me? Just vote however you want. I’ll catch you on the rebound. My last shipment of illegal aliens and cigarettes got nabbed by the Albanian cops so I’m kinda short right now.

  159. Well, since they are anonymous I couldn’t know whether they are the king of Prussia, but since there is no king of Prussia I guess not. 😉

    I know at least some of them are in the SP list because Rowal said so.

  160. “Mary Robinette Kowal @MaryRobinette · 4h 4 hours ago The essays coming in with the Hugo scholarship applications are wonderful. The SFF community is full of fantastic people.”

    Thanks.

  161. Did you know the word “gullible” is not in the dictionary? I always thought that was kinda weird.

  162. @Doctor, if you don’t think most artists are liberals, it’s time to leave your mother’s basement and interact with the real world. LOL. What a loser.

  163. Greg… Most “out” artists are probably liberal and you’ll find few who disagree. However, the fact that it’s well known that it’s completely necessary to be “in the closet” if you’re not liberal and hope to be an artist or if you are a working artist doesn’t make those “in the closet” artists “liberal.” It makes them “in the closet.”

    Just as the fact that science fiction authors spouting off some leftist or anti-Christian bull-sh*t on a panel at a Con without any sort of push-back in no way proves that their audience is entirely comprised of the “choir.”

  164. @AG: Always looking for a free meal ticket, eh? Generous liberals give. Selfish conservatives take. It’s the way of the world.
    Now please, interlude over. Get back to complaining that conservatives don’t get enough Hugos. But never actually volunteer to help with the ceremony or Worldcon or fandom at all. Just show up and demand volunteers give you an award. Tear it from their hands if necessary.
    By the way, I don’t think you’ve told us yet: did you, yourself, deserve a Hugo for that thing you wrote in Grade 8? If it makes any difference, I think you were robbed of a Hugo. Indeed, I was in on the conspiracy. It was because of your political beliefs at the time, which if you recall, were rather pro-Regan.

  165. @Julie I trust you’re not suggesting that there are more “closet conservatives” who are artists than “open liberals” who are artists. Sure, closet-conservatives exist in art. But the numbers aren’t even close. The fact that there are hordes and hordes of liberals in the art world is no doubt why conservatives go to hide in the closet in the first place.
    Liberals are typically much more attracted to the life of a starving artist than conservatives are. That’s a fact. When liberals win art-related awards more often than conservatives, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s math. Liberals simply have way more horses in the race.

  166. I mean, consistent messaging from the trolls would be nice. There’s that character up there talking about how we’re keeping him in free chips, and there’s this guy carping about how we don’t do enough for Worldcon and are selfish.
    Pick one.

  167. Greg was *maybe* getting up to high C+/low B- territory, but completely lost it with “mother’s basement”. Greg, I thought brilliant creative artists like you and John Scalzi were the ones with all the fresh, breathtakingly innovative material. That one is, what, 30 years old now? Dude.

    If you want to give us a trollish lecture about how Scalzi legitimately deserves to get more Hugo noms in 10 years than Arthur C. Clarke got in 50, because “creative” and “liberal”, be my guest, but try to add something fresh and original to the riffs. You won’t convince anybody, but at least try. At least give us something to laugh at. You’re shooting for annoying, but are maxing out at boring.

    It’s easy to see why the SP guys steamrollered your brain trust, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The only mystery is that it didn’t happen long ago.

  168. “Always looking for a free meal ticket, eh? Generous liberals give. Selfish conservatives take. It’s the way of the world.”

    BWAHAHAHA!!! So tell us, Greggy, how DOES that Kool-Aid taste?

  169. Greg… most Americans are white. Just exactly how is that a relevant statement? It’s not. “Most” artists may be liberal. But that’s far from all. And having a majority (White!) doesn’t make it ipso facto MORAL to make the minority in any particular room feel that they must self-censor. It’s not “okay” and it doesn’t make you the “good guy.”

    “Liberals” seem to get this concept when it comes to people just exactly like them but who have innies instead of outies or who are visibly from an out group… but they still require that ideological lock-step. This is not “diversity”. Larry had a brilliant illustration of this… you can have a million words for “snow” but it’s still all snow.

    And frankly, dude… saying that somehow there is something about the brain which means that “liberals” are artistic and “truth has a liberal slant” and “liberals” are just smarter and that’s why there aren’t very many out-of the closet conservatives in academia… and that this isn’t blatant bigotry on your part, sounds a whole lot like someone we all know who claims that it’s a simple fact that white brains have had longer to become civilized.

    Because in the end it’s all the same argument about who is more evolved and thus superior to who they don’t happen to like.

    Well, bull sh*t. Conservatives are creative, often compulsively so. You can make up stories about how people who think just like you who have the dominance in any particular field are RIGHT TO EXCLUDE people… and that that exclusion has NOTHING to do with the actual disparity of numbers but those who have any actual discipline of thought will laugh at you. It’s not right to exclude people just because you’ve got a majority, and your majority does depend on excluding people who don’t conform to your tribal check list.

  170. “… to make the minority in any particular room feel that they must self-censor.”
    I don’t do anything to “make” a conservative self-censor. That is their choice. If I was a conservative, I’d be embarassed to tell anyone about it too.

    More artists are liberal. It’s a fact. Your “Grand Poobah” — Beibart — has an article titled “Why are Most Artists Liberal?” Google it. That’s your conservative Grand Poobah talking! Beibart! We can’t argue with the Grand Conservative Poobah, can we? And Beribart has some typically “wise” conservative explanations for why most artists are liberal. Including, “Artists, tend to be deeply emotional, sociologically less adept, and psychologically needier than the basic population.”

    I must say, conservatives like you and your Grand Poobah really do know how to make liberals feel welcome! I should take more tips from the likes of you and your Grand Poobah.

    Julie, you are simply ignorant of life. Or a liar. But I’ll guess both. 95% of artists are liberals. That is a fact. Just like 95% of conservatives are investment bankers. These facts are obvious to anyone who belongs to the human race. Even your Grand Poobah Beibart says so (I’m sure you loved that article when it was published, probably re-tweeting it and posting it all over Facebook… Now? Not so much).

  171. What, is this your weak version of the Cat Game, seeing how many times you can say “Grand Poobah”? Is that supposed to make us mad? You even fail at trolling. Go tag out and send someone better.

  172. I consider myself something of a renaissance man; at least if we use the word to refer to people who are good at many things. I enjoy many different kinds of art. I can do one particular kind of art to award-winning commercial quality. It took me the better part of 20 years to get there. I had to sacrifice time on other areas, to focus on the one area. But I try to keep my hand in, beyond writing. In point of fact, I have three careers: civilian, military, and batcave

    Batcave is by far the most satisfying, but the military life has done things for me nothing else ever could have done; and I am a far better person for it too.

    That’s why I have to wonder about some of the poor sobs who are unhinged that a troupe of “outsiders” came to “ruin” the Precious Thing. Is there nothing else in there lives to which they can claim fierce commitment? Is the world of Worldcon literally all they have? I puzzle over it. I try not to make assumptions, but I wonder very strongly.

    Meanwhile, hooray for the investment banker who plays rugby and does cello when he has time.

    Likewise, hooray for the painter who did two tours in Iraq with the Marines, and can bowl a 300.

    As Heinlein said so well:

    Specialization is for insects.

  173. “What, is this your weak version of the Cat Game, seeing how many times you can say “Grand Poobah”?”

    They literally cannot imagine doing anything without some kind of authority figure telling them to do it. People like Greg would be just as happy with Hitler, Stalin, Timurlang, or Jim Jones calling the shots. Doesn’t matter to them, as long as it’s someone who will relieve them of the burden of thinking.

    They imagine that we are the same. Since Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, Vox Day, Sarah Palin, or whoever their current bête noire might be, are “leaders”, we must blindly accept anything those “leaders” say.

    It’s a psychological deficiency.

  174. I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to explain to Greg Niles the difference between “most” and “almost all.”
    Further, I wonder if he ever considers the notion that someone might be embarrassed to admit that they were a liberal.
    Going even further, I wonder if he understands how little we care about “Grand Poobahs.” I mean, we’re SF fans. We’ll take backing when we can, but we’re used to making our own way.

  175. Little hint, Greg: Using cute terms like “Grand Poobah” doesn’t miraculously make your appeal to authority fallacy valid.

  176. The more he talks the more he proves that conservatives are made to feel unwelcome and that it’s considered a feature not a bug.

    But we knew that.

  177. Since I’ve been invoked… Yes. The drawing is completely random. I mean it when I say that ANYONE who wants one can apply and that I will not be selecting for politics. That’s not the way I roll.

    I believe that SFF should be more inclusive and diverse. Diversity is not just about race. It’s about different experiences and about valuing those different experiences.

  178. I think that’s interesting. That the most hard core of warrior classes on the planet still send traditional visual artists, painters, sculptors, into combat to record what photography can not. The martial tradition of Japan also valued painting and poetry.

  179. I’m put in mind of the discussion of different types of history in I, Claudius. Young Claudius is in the library with Livy and Pollio, who ask Claudius which of them is the better historian.

    Claudius answers that there are two types of history: one to compel men to truth (Pollio) and one to persuade them to virtue (Livy), and that both have their merits.

    Perhaps photography serves the “truth” purpose here, while the traditional arts are aimed at the “virtue” purpose.

  180. @mary

    > Diversity is not just about race. It’s about different experiences and about valuing those different experiences.

    you won’t find any disagreement from people here. The only disagreement would be the need to add different political viewpoints to the list.

  181. Mary Kowal – I don’t know what your politics are, though I’m informed your somewhere on the left side of the spectrum, but I respect you coming here and saying that. Thank you.

  182. Yep, I could not care less what someone’s politics are. I try to treat everyone with respect, as long as they are willing to return the favor. So thanks, Ms. Kowal. I know how easy it is to go with the flow at a time like this.

  183. Doctor Locketopus wrote,

    “GRRM (who has actually been fairly reasonable in this overall, given his personal politics) breaks out the “You must denounce Vox Day and all his works” card.

    How about you denounce the Nielsen Haydens, George? They’ve been spouting rhetoric every bit as vile and inflammatory as Vox’s, and they’ve been doing it for decades. With them it’s arguably worse. Until recently, Vox was just some guy on the internet, while they are (or were, in Teresa’s case) highly-ranked editors for a major publisher.”

    This is a tremendous point that is worth repeating. Even more, GRRM ought to denounce the several media outlets that have been literally breaking the law regarding defamation, committing legal libel by saying that Sad Puppies is an effort to silence women and minorities out when the slate shows that to be false.

    It is not illegal to express negative opinions about someone or something. It is illegal to use clear falsehoods to do so. Vox Day is on the right of the law while several media outlets (EW, Slate, The Guardian) are on the wrong side of the law. Why is some blogger being held to a higher standard than these major media outlets?

    GRRM would love for his opponents to become a circular firing squad. Hopefully, they don’t take the bait.

  184. It’s not the inclusive and diverse part that’s the problem, it’s the part where white men as a group are said to oppose that which is the problem, and on zero evidence this is the case.

    Anyone who’s been following this for the last few years knows “diversity” has been used as a platform by wacky racialized gender feminists to club white men over the head as a group as endemic homophobic, women-hating racists. That is not an opinion but a fact reflected in quotes from throughout people well-placed in SFF’s most core institutions.

    Aside from those massive expressions of hate speech, I agree with Dan’s point above: there is a huge difference between institutionalized hate speech and two guys at the fringes of the SFF community.

    If I had $100 for every moron who wrote some variation of outer space isn’t just for white men anymore I’d own an island. Even right now there is a Twitter trend re-imagining Hugo categories. Who’s the centerpiece of that trend:

    SURPRISE!!! IT’S WHITE MEN.

    Supposedly we Men’s Rights Activist right wing racist homophobic privileged assholes are the one’s doing that stuff but it’s only ever feminist ideologues not only doing it but leading the way.

    Using orcs as evidence of white male racism is quite a different thing then your colleagues saying straight out they won’t review “cracka ass cracka” men and oh, by the way, let’s not read white men for a year, shall we?

    When is obvious obvious? In feminist land, it never is. The only thing obvious to SJWs is that white men are moral, spiritual and intellectual inferiors who must be taken in hand. That is reflected in literally 10,000 quotes and which never stop for one day.

  185. @davidelang
    >you won’t find any disagreement from people here. The only disagreement would be the need to add different political viewpoints to the list.

    Can you clarify that for me? Because there’s, like, three different ways I can read it and I want to be sure I’m not misunderstanding.

    And… since y’all have an honest-to-God Social Justice Warrior stopping by, (Though I’d rather be a Social Justice Paladin, because then I can cast spells), if you have any questions, I can try to answer them. If that’s okay with Brad?

  186. The more he talks the more he proves that conservatives are made to feel unwelcome and that it’s considered a feature not a bug.

    And that he can say that even as we get repeatedly reminded of how evil Hollywood’s blacklist of communists was. Now, we’re willing to read outright Trotskyist authors, though I can understand the logic behind someone that thinks that political label represents evil. I can’t understand the logic that can condemn conservatives while giving the communists a pass, unless one is so far to the left to be beyond rational politics.

    Also, one could spend a quite long post addressing the errors in Greg’s understanding and representation of Dr. Loudon’s article in Breitbart (In case you are curious: http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2011/01/09/why-are-most-artists-liberal/).

  187. Mary,

    Thanks for stopping by to debate. I can’t speak for everyone here, but I welcome a chance to engage diplomatically, and respect your willingness to do so.

    Can you clarify that for me? Because there’s, like, three different ways I can read it and I want to be sure I’m not misunderstanding.

    I’m not the original poster, so I can’t speak for them, but I find that every time I hear “Diversity is not just about race. It’s about different experiences and about valuing those different experiences.” what I end up seeing is diversity… except for ideology. It’s been most visible with regards to college faculty; a faculty that will insist on it’s commitment to diversity that has nobody that self-identifies as a conservative or a Libertarian (and often nobody that is a member of a group that tends toward one of those ideological flavors, like Evangelical Christians, Mormons, or practicing Catholics), and often seems to be actively working to make sure that that ideological purity remains.

  188. Mary Robinette Kowal: Thank you for coming by. Your call for calm a few days back was greatly appreciated. It’s good to see someone trying to find an actual solution rather than just using the No-Award nuclear option. And getting more fans involved is a good thing.

    Larry Correia had this to say the other day: “Yes. And we don’t want to be Hugo Pope. I’d love to see so many people involved that any one little clique is totally irrelevant.”

  189. I have a question. My definition of hate speech is pretty severe when it comes to the core SFF community.

    It must be a person who obsessively (daily to once a week) singles out human beings according to their ethnicity or sexual expression. Next, that person must negatively profile those humans 100% of the time. Also keep in mind how weird it is to do that in a literary movement about SPACESHIPS AND DRAGONS.

    What is so hard to understand about that and why can’t we eliminate this “punching up” excuse note from teacher and simply ostracize anyone who does that? What is a convention harassment policy worth if it only applies to one race and sex? What does the word “harassment” even mean? It becomes a useless and meaningless word, useful only as a weapon in the hands of only one side.

    I have my own answer to all that. I insist on being accorded the same ethical rights as everyone else. I will allow no one to chip away at my right to be treated as an individual rather than enrolled in a virtual KKK by reason of birth. My birth was not an ideological announcement no matter how much someone wants to slap a scarlet letter of white male privilege on me.

  190. Mary, I have to disagree with you a bit. You don’t fit my definition of SJW. You fit my definition of liberal. There is a difference. We hold different values, but its apparent you can discuss things and be reasonable.

    “Requires Hate”, and Theresa Hayden fit my definition of SJW. Neither shows any ability to critically think things through. Both spout hate and attack without reason. Neither seems capable of independent reasoning.

    You’ll find most {if not all} readers of this board willing to engage with a liberal. Not so much with a true SJW.

  191. My definition of an SJW is a person who is a proponent of Third Wave Intersectional Gender Feminism. That translates as someone who believes a white male patriarchy oppresses “marginalized” groups, i.e. women, PoC, gays, via racial supremacy and a heterosexual feminine/masculine gender which is a fake social construct which oppresses everyone, but especially gays and women.

    That is not something I made up out of my head but learned reading SJW rhetoric. It has nothing to do with “liberalism.” Banning Frank Frazetta and “booth babes” from shared public spaces is not a “liberal” act but one of the conservative Right from the 1950s.

  192. I think you are missing the point in re: “Were they contacted?”

    A list is put out there that is clearly attached to a particular agenda. It’s political. It’s controversial.

    You say that with a couple of exceptions, everyone on that list was contacted. *That statement implies that the people on the list endorse the agenda.* It’s like saying they have co-signed your manifesto.

    Now some of them are denying that they were contacted, or that they understood what they were signing up for, etc.

    You screwed up. You should not have asked. You should have just put your list out there with a note that if somebody wants off, they can contact you. (Technically, you aren’t even required to do that, but it IS the courteous thing.)

    You have tainted your own cause with a lot of “I said, they said”, and you have put a number of people who are just trying to make a living into a very bad position.

    You used poor judgement. Own up to it, make amends, and don’t do that again.

  193. What does the word “harassment” even mean? It becomes a useless and meaningless word, useful only as a weapon in the hands of only one side.

    One of the issues to me is that too many words seem to be defined by the SJW side subjectively in order to achieve a specific objective. Take ‘racism’: “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races” (what comes up when I search Google) strikes me as an objective definition. Definitions of racism that include a “power” component, such as “Racism is different from racial prejudice, hatred, or discrimination. Racism involves having the power to carry out systematic discriminatory practices through the major institutions of our society.” (from http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/Multicultural_Student_Services/definitionsofracism.pdf, first Google search for ‘definition of racism power’) are completely subjective based on how one defines power. We then need to get into the definition of power, and every time I’ve tried in this regard, what I get is a spurious group-based definition that assumes that any white person has more power than the President of the United States and the Attorney General.

  194. Mary,

    You are always welcome here. Though I must warn you, I am a lazy moderator.

    Guys, the elf princess has come to the gate of Erebor. If I can be a gentleman dwarf, you all can do it too.

    I tend to agree with some of the points above. An SJW (for me) is someone who is so ideologically in the tank for their gender/ethnicity politics, they literally can’t see beyond the glass of their own bottle. Everyone and everything is a potential target for scorn, derision, and worse. Caustic, scorching, never giving the benefit of the doubt, always assuming guilty, etc.

    Liberalism (on the other hand) implies that you can make room in your world for others who don’t think or believe like you do. No name calling. Disagreement, perhaps, but no name calling.

    This field could use a healthy dose of liberalism right now. Way too much SJW going on.

    And yes, what was said about diversity reflects my experience too. At present, I fear the field is obsessed with skin-deep diversity, but is actively working against ideological diversity. When the people around you are cosmetically different, but you all share the same general beliefs and assumptions, that’s not necessarily the sort of deep diversity I’d hope to see in a group of people who are SF/F pros and fans.

    Of course, maybe it’s always been like this? Ever since Moskowitz kicked out the futurians? A great many of the earliest organized Fans (caps) were card-carrying Marxists, and they were at odds (to a high degree) with other Fans (caps) who were adamantly opposed to Marxism. The field has retained this split (morphing over time) and right now we seem to be experiencing another moment, somewhat similar to Moskowitz and the Futurians.

    Ergo, who gets to “belong” and who decides?

    My desire is to shout from the rooftops, “Nobody can kick anybody out, nobody is the gatekeeper.” Obviously this is not an opinion shared by all.

  195. My only hope is that Mary (and other people) don’t become additional victims. In the lexicons of Wu and Chu, there are no gradations – there’s only ‘100% in lockstep’ and ‘implacable enemy’. Mere suggestion that there may – possibly- be two sides to something is enough to draw ire. And as long as SJWs are willing to use press connections and go asymmetric from the outset, while their opponents won’t, the end result won’t be pretty.

  196. Mary, thank you for being willing to talk rationally. I also have to tell you that you, at least as far as I have interacted with you, do not seem to fit at all the definition of SJW.

    For me, a SJW is not someone who believes that all people have the same dignity and rights, no matter his race, gender or sexual orientation. I believe that and I’m not a SJW. In fact, a SJW by definition can’t believe that when it comes to white heterosexual males.

    A SJW is not someone who believes that diversity is a value to be cherished, and that we are all the richer when women get fully involved in SFF, and that the more people of different races and orientations that get involved the better, just like the more white males who get involved the better. I also believe that and I’m not a SJW.

    What differentiates me from a SJW is that I’m not OK with being treated like a second class human being, whose opinions are worthless, just because of the precise color of my skin or the precise piping that hangs between my legs. Yes, I agree that to a certain extent, in that particular sense, I have it easier. So let’s build together a society where people are not discriminated against. What can’t be the solution is treating us as subhuman, and when someone dares to complain we are “mansplaining”, we are just “privileged cisgender white males” and therefore nothing we can say is worth anything. Unless we agree with everything they say, in which case we are a “white savior”. No, I do not need to “check my privilege”. I’m not that privileged, let me tell you, but even if I were I would still be a human being.

    A SJW is someone who bullies anyone who dares disagree with their tactics. As soon as a person does that, particularly if it’s a white male, then he becomes a racist and a misogynist. Those are very charged words, they are the worst of the worst, the scum. And anyone who stands up to them automatically is this.

    If you want to see what an articulate SJW looks like, you could for example visit Abigail Nussbaum’s blog and read around a bit (she was nominated for the best fan writer Hugo last year). You don’t need to go further than the first article. Think whether those opinions do not fit any sane definition of hatespeech. And we do not have to put up with one of those. We have to put up with dozens and dozens, each with their own supporters. VD is one person and he was expelled from the SFWA and has a tiny editorial in I don’t know what foreign country. I think of him as a megalomaniac troll and bully, and I don’t like what he says and does (well, except for his Patrick Nielsen video, that actually was funny). However we have scores of haters attacking us, and they are not getting expelled of the SFWA. On the contrary, they are celebrated and applauded and given Hugos. And when they say hateful things everyone looks the other way, smiling to themselves, as if thinking, “ah, the young, how passionate in their beliefs.”

    And we need to disavow VD. OK, but when are the unrestrained haters going to be disavowed too?

  197. Arthur Chu is a classic bigot. He doesn’t like white people and gets around that by defining them as an oppressive ideology. That is also the centerpiece of intersectional gender feminism. By an amazing coincidence, whites, men and heterosexuality itself are all political and ideologies.

  198. Chu is on record saying he’s got issues with black people too. Which might explain why I occupied so much of Chu’s attention last week. A white guy with a black wife? That’s double jeopardy! (pun totally intended)

  199. VD doesn’t think you’re a milquetoast, Brad. I do believe the phrase was “moderate, but… steady under fire,” which is about the highest praise I’ve ever seen him give to someone he finds “moderate.” I’m honestly curious as to how we got the the point where a political radical (VD) but otherwise rational and forthright individual is equated with a pseudonymous troll of epic proportions whose primary contribution to the world is writing some sloppy fiction and (publicly) agreeing with the right people on the right issues.

    If that’s the best comparison, I’m gonna have to say it looks *really* good for one side of this debate.

  200. I see no reason to disavow anybody, particularly when it is so easy to quote out of context or not understand the whole situation. If I was in Italy and ran into Vox Day, I’d try to strike up a conversation. Some of the most significant people in history were controversial. Love him or hate him, Vox is slowly making himself a very significant figure in SFF.

  201. Because it’s been stated that almost all writers are liberal, here, off the top of my head, are some famous, non-SFF conservatives :

    Jane Austen
    Dostoyevsky
    Flaubert
    W.B. Yeats
    T.S. Eliot
    P.G. Wodehouse
    Evelyn Waugh
    Jorge Luis Borges
    Vladimir Nabokov
    Saul Bellow
    John Updike

    I could go on …

  202. Mary,

    I have a multi-part question for you:

    I appreciate your call for civility a few days back. Are you willing to spearhead that kind of call going forward, even if it means publicly calling out your friends and colleagues by name?

    A call for civility cannot go one way. For example, I have no doubt you’d call out Vox Day if he said something you felt was beyond the pale. However, if John Scalzi or NK Jemisin said something beyond the pale (and I think we can be honest and say they have, on occasion) it may be more difficult for you to call them out since they are your friends/colleagues.

    If you are not willing to spearhead that kind of effort (which would be understandable) would you be willing to fully support someone else who took up that charge, again, even if they were calling out people you are close to?

  203. I agree with those others who have say that we should not be calling for casting out or denouncing any author or artist with regards to consideration of their works for awards or inclusion in SFF.

    People who have committed crimes should be charged with crimes. People who are rude should not be invited to tea. People should feel free to dislike each other for any number of reasons. There is utility in effectively calling out bad behavior – but “effective” and “public lynch mob” are generally not the same thing.

  204. I get wordy so I’ve been trying hard to think of a short, pithy, and *accurate* definition of what a SJW is. Because I know more than one person, several certainly, who self-identify as such because they believe in fostering diversity and inclusivity. But as far as I can see that includes most people on “this side” as well.

    A Social Justice Warrior NEEDS to have an enemy.

    Attack dogs need something, or someone, to attack. They need to be able to say “Look at me! I’m fighting the good fight.” They gain status and stature by being the public face of that Good Fight. They’re experts at identifying people who can be portrayed as the enemy, who can be singled out and attacked. They are the ones typing the death threats on the side of Righteousness. They’re the Sin Seekers. I’m not talking low hanging fruit here where anyone would agree that something said was racist or hurtful, which also doesn’t justify harassment, btw. I’m talking about offences committed by good people without a bigoted bone in their body because they wrote an alternate history story where the Bering land bridge never existed. Or a first contact story. Or a story about settling an alien planet. Or a story that includes a military that’s 50-50 men and women. They didn’t explicitly put a demographic in their book. They did explicitly include a demographic but it’s still wrong. Because someone doesn’t do it right, it can be twisted to show that they’ve somehow Sinned. They’ll be forced to public confession of that Sin. And in order not to be targeted in turn people just let them get away with it.

    A Social Justice Warrior needs to have an enemy.

    If you don’t NEED to have an enemy you’re not a Social Justice Warrior. You’re just a person who wants to invite more people to the sandbox to play.

  205. @ Julie Pascal (April 12, 2015 at 11:58 am)
    A Social Justice Warrior needs to have an enemy.

    Our grandparents and parents just called them “Marxists” of various flavors. The behavoir is the same; only the names have changed. They will eat their own for want of an ememy in the quest for ideological purity. Cycle of Life, and all.

  206. “you have put a number of people who are just trying to make a living into a very bad position.”

    No, that would be the people who are lining up to burn them at the stake.

    If a mob with pitchforks burns someone alive, it is the fault of the mob. No one else. Not even if they’ve decided that the victim is a witch/Jew/kulak by mistake.

    Your position is akin to the spouse-beater who yells “See what you made me do!”, and it is reprehensible.

  207. http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/04/12/the-architecture-of-fear/

    Sarah Hoyt got that taken care of this morning. “Technique of The Coup D’Etat by Giovanni Guareschi ” Sarah summarizes the point of it:

    “That is, each individual now knows he is not an isolated individual surrounded by good party members who will turn on him, but one in a collection of decent individuals kinda sorta following an ideology but not so far it blunts their humanity and ONE isolated *sshole turning them against each other for the power.”

  208. I think that, regardless of whether we need to condemn VD while the other side of the debate doesn’t condemn their own racists and sexists, we would do well in no associating ourselves with him in any way. His toxic personality can only poison us too. Whether he is primarily a troll or a racist is his problem, and it shouldn’t be ours.

    Again in my opinion, we also shouldn’t adopt a them vs us mentality so much that it makes impossible to reach out to moderates.

  209. Julie Pascal: “Nice writing career you have there. Shame if anything were to *happen* to it . . . “

  210. Jane Austen also fought under Arthur Wellesley the future Duke of Wellington at the Siege of Seringapatam in India and is rumored to have killed Tipoo Sultan himself by running him through with a bayonet after personally leading a charge over the ramparts. She claimed an enormous gem from Tipoo Sultan’s turban and brought it home to England where she was cursed forever, thereby inspiring Wilkie Collins’ novel The Moonstone.

  211. “Your fortress is certainly one of which I have the highest opinion. It should be quite distressful to me should anything happen to it.” – Jane Austen to Tippoo Sultan moments before she ran him through with a bayonet.

  212. Nice “othering”, AG. Who else to we need to throw on the bonfire after Vox Day? But no “Us versus Them” here. Really? Your stance is … problematic.

  213. @ag

    There is a big difference between not associating with someone and denouncing them.

    I haven’t inventigated the details of what Vox has been accused of doing, but I’ve taken a few looks at his blog and just not found it to be something that had enough content to be worth the time to read. So I don’t associate or have anything to do with him.

    But I’m not going to denounce him as “evil, nobody else should talk to him either” because I haven’t the time or interest to do the investigation to decide if what he’s accused of is actually true or is being mischaracterized (I don’t mean him being obnoxious and using foul language, that’s easily found on his blog and is worth not associating with him, but something severe enough to make it that I need to start telling others that he is EVIL)

    @mary

    As others have said, the one things that is different between what you said and the extension (to include different ideas, not just ‘demographics’ and ‘experiences’) is to include people with different ideologies. Just because you disagree with the politics of someone else, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be part of Fandom. You are willing to talk to people who have different ideologies, the people we are calling SJWs consider anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideology to be someone so stupid or subhuman that they can’t be talked to, reasoned with, or convinced. They can only be silenced and cast out.

    Truely valueing diversity includes acknolwedging that you may not be right in every aspect and even those that you disagree with the most may be right once in a while. So while you don’t seek out discussion of the differences (unless you are a massocist :-), you also don’t refuse to allow those people to be part of Fandom, you talk freely about shared loves. We can have a very nice discussion about Firefly without careing (or even knowing) what each other’s politics are.

  214. @Mr.A is Mr.A: Sorry you feel that way. There is a difference between “not associate with” and “throw on the bonfire”.

  215. @AG: Sorry you feel that way. There is a difference between “not associate with” and “throw on the bonfire”.

    And you seem to be the one who can’t tell what that difference might be. Splitter!

  216. Jane Austen was once a Hindoostani nautch dancer and courtesan of the highest order. She used read her own poetry written in Urdu wearing nothing but a henna tuxedo which gave the illusion she was not completely naked. She was famous for wearing lampshades on her head and sneaking up behind her guests and giving off long extended belches in their ear. See: Jane Austen’s Mysore Bordello.

  217. There’s a big difference between “association” and a failure to scream like a little girl, leap back with both hands clutched to one’s pearls, shrieking “Keep it away! Keep it away!”

    For me it’s a matter of principle. Do I agree with free speech or not? If I do, then it means that I have to tolerate the expression of ideas that I feel don’t actually stand up on merit and that I don’t like. What does actually bother me is the idea that I MUST react viscerally, and start flapping my arms and running in circles screeching. Frankly, this gives VD power that he wouldn’t otherwise have.

    Which again, frankly, ties into what I think about the whole SJW baloney. What is your (general “your”) preferred end condition? How is what you’re doing going to accomplish that? Do you not see that nearly everything you insist upon works directly contrary to your stated goals?

    But the Feels, you know.

  218. Question for Mary Robinette Kowal:

    If diversity of thought and opinion is truly part of your desire, why do we never hear about that from folks on your side? In fact, the leading lights seem to always be the John Scalzi and Teresa Nielsen Hayden types, folks who show no interest in diverse opinions and who love to belittle and dehumanize those they disagree with.

  219. I guess Mary changed her mind about answering questions today. Hopefully she comes back so we can interact with her.

  220. And now the routinely anti-white Arthur Chu is at The Daily Beast attacking John C. Wright as a homophobe. Take note how gender feminism deep sixed Elizabeth Moon from being a Guest of Honor at WisCon for merely mildly critiquing Islam, which is the most legalistically homophobic cluster of nations on religious grounds in the world today.

    That’s what happens when you worship race and gender identity as a moral ethos over principle. You end up with incomprehensible gibberish. Imagine that’s a baseball game and then imagine no baseball game.

  221. Well, I don’t think anyone expects her to address criticisms aimed at editors (and former editors) and fellow authors at her own publishing house, however richly deserved those criticisms might be.

    It could be class, or it could be fear, but in either case I won’t blame her if she ducks those questions.

  222. Listen here, you cracka ass cracka sour dough-faced parade of white dudes and privilege piggies… why aren’t you denouncing your racists?

  223. @Talvin: So, the most ideologically diverse slate out there is “political.”
    Pull the other one. Your “concerns” have been addressed elsewhere.

  224. @LoupFou79 – “If diversity of thought and opinion is truly part of your desire, why do we never hear about that from folks on your side? In fact, the leading lights seem to always be the John Scalzi and Teresa Nielsen Hayden types, folks who show no interest in diverse opinions and who love to belittle and dehumanize those they disagree with.”

    I think it’s because you don’t hang out with us, honestly. Because I’ve called Scalzi out for being insensitive and stupid and so has Tempest, and I’ve called Tempest out for crossing lines, and she’s called me out. Teresa? I’ve only met her a couple of times and don’t read Making Light so can’t answer that.

    @Civilis says:”…I find that every time I hear “Diversity is not just about race. It’s about different experiences and about valuing those different experiences.” what I end up seeing is diversity… except for ideology. It’s been most visible with regards to college faculty; a faculty that will insist on it’s commitment to diversity that has nobody that self-identifies as a conservative or a Libertarian (and often nobody that is a member of a group that tends toward one of those ideological flavors, like Evangelical Christians, Mormons, or practicing Catholics), and often seems to be actively working to make sure that that ideological purity remains.”
    Fair point, but since I’m not in academia, it’s not one I can directly address. In fiction, however, and SFF I can talk about it. In the United States, the default is Christian, specifically Protestant Christian. So when people are looking for a diverse group, they are starting with the base that they already have a bunch of Christians on board. (Mormons, interestingly, have a disproportionate representation in SFF compared to the rest of literature, which I’ve been given to understand is because of Orson Scott Card and BYU.) Point being that when looking for a different viewpoint, people look for something as far afield as they can go, which generally means not a branch of Christianity, since that’s the default. And by default, what do I mean? Let me demonstrate it with a rhetoric question: If you had to make a guess, how many people in this comment thread do you think are Christian?

    Yeah. My assumption is that everyone is. And then, I’m surprised when someone isn’t and I’m fucking liberal. THAT”S what I mean when I’m talking about a default and when people are looking for diversity, they are looking for people who aren’t in the default because that’s already covered.

    Re: Social Justice Warriors (there were several of you saying similar things)

    Oh… That distinction is really interesting. Wow. Okay. So the term means very, very different things over in liberal land. So– Requires Hate? Awful person. Just awful. Theresa? Been nice to me, but I’m a Tor author and liberal so… you know. I understand why our mileage varies there. The thing is that I don’t actually read her stuff, so I don’t know the specifics that you’re talking about.

    As for me? Will Shetterly and, I’m pretty sure, Larry have both called me a Social Justice Warrior. Also, GamerGate, who have been having LOADS of fun with me for the past couple of days. All of them define me as an SJW. I don’t actually find it a perjorative because I think that social justice — ie a level playing field — is something worth fighting for. (Although, seriously, I’d rather be a Paladin, because spells. Or a wizard. Maybe a thief) Point being, that my beliefs are all about many of the things that Brad has been railing against. The difference? I’m polite. Or rather, I’m perceived as polite because I’m Southern and… bless your heart. 😉 It makes me uncomfortable to be given a pass on my beliefs, just because I come across as nice. (I’m not, actually.)

    So for me, SJW is someone who thinks that people ought to be treated equally and with respect, and that wrongs should be redressed AND someone who takes flack for thinking so.

    But by YOUR definition? I think there are WAY fewer SJWs in liberal land than you think there are. WAY WAY fewer.

    @AndrewV asks: Are you willing to spearhead that kind of call going forward, even if it means publicly calling out your friends and colleagues by name? [Paraphrasing: asks me about Scalzi and NK Jemisin]
    I have called Scalzi out. Also ripped him a new one to his face over the Bulletin, which was badly mishandled. Also to K.T. Bradford when I thought she was bullying someone, which nearly cost me a friendship, but we worked through it.

    Did I get everyone?

  225. “Been nice to me, but I’m a Tor author and liberal so… you know. I understand why our mileage varies there.”

    And how. I’m sure James May has a volume or two of quotes from this “nice person”.

  226. Oh, and if you’re getting blowback from GamerGate? That’s because the “nice person” brought them into it with one of her rants.

  227. P.S. as a non-LDS person, and I absolutely don’t mean any offense by this, but it does not surprise me in the slightest that there are many Mormon SF writers. From what I know of the LDS scriptures, there’s actually a fairly decent SFF yarn in there, even if you simply read it as literature.

    It’s in the cultural DNA, for the same reason there are many Irish poets, Italian opera singers, and Russian authors of brooding, depressing novels. 🙂

  228. @Doctor Locketopus says: “Oh, and if you’re getting blowback from GamerGate? That’s because the “nice person” brought them into it with one of her rants.”
    Um… No. Not when a certain thundering dickweasel went into their reddit forum and posted that I was buying votes. Go ahead. Ask me what my mentions have been like on Twitter the last couple of days.

  229. @ Andrew V

    don’t exect people to be watching a blog in real-time, let alone responding to it.

    you don’t know what timezone she is in at the moment (if you even know what one she lives in) and she has other things to do with her time (like her own blog among other things)

    give people a good bit longer (like a day or so) before you even start to wonder if they are not going to reappear

  230. Point being that when looking for a different viewpoint, people look for something as far afield as they can go, which generally means not a branch of Christianity, since that’s the default.

    I’m still trying to figure out how your response relates to the issue at hand for me, which is that calls to diversity always seem to not include ideological diversity. True, a majority of Americans are some flavor of Protestant Christian. If you were seeing something along the lines of “we’re truly diverse, we have Anglicans, Methodists AND Episcopals!” from the conservative side, you may have a point. But I don’t see anyone on this side that tends to not welcome a broad array of viewpoints when it comes to who wrote the fiction we read. When I’m looking for an author that’s different to read, religion is the last thing I look for (if I look for it at all). In fact, I normally look at the plot synopsis of the book, rather than the author’s biography, when seeing if it’s going to be an interesting read.

    On another level, the view that I should care about the religion of the author, be it to find one that matches mine or find one that’s as different from mine as possible, seems stuck in an old-fashioned view that builds our identity around a family / tribe structure. Given the global reach of culture, is it any surprise that our cultural cues often no longer align on the oid fashioned patterns? I likely enjoy different entertainment, different religion and different ideology than my neighbors, and likely come from a different ethnic and cultural background. My great-great grandmother swore that she never wanted to see one of her children marrying a filthy Catholic. These days, that someone could hold such a view looks rather silly.

  231. “Not when a certain thundering dickweasel went into their reddit forum and posted that I was buying votes.”

    Sad Puppies wasn’t even on the GG radar until TNH unleashed her rant, and no the conspiracy theory she concocted based on the fact that there are people who are both gamers and SF fans (I know I was shocked) is not persuasive. It’s right down there in “Jews are poisoning the wells” territory.

    So, umm… yes.

    P.P.S. How come you get to call a poisonous bigot like Bradford a “friend”, while your guys are demanding that everyone here publicly denounce Vox Day (who I do not even know, other than having argued with him online at least once)?

  232. @Civillis: I think I completely misunderstood your question in the first place. And I’m still a little confused. In your question about calls for diversity not including ideological diversity you mentioned Christians and Mormons, but now you seem to be saying that thinking about religion is bad.

    I think where we may be going astray is that you were trying to clarify someone else’s question, so all the wires have been crossed. Should we try again or just leave it as confusing?

  233. @mary, I think you mostly hit things. The big one being the difference in viewpoints on what SJW means. the fact that you are willing to come and talk pulls you out of what we term the SJW camp and into the “liberal” camp. We can easily deal with liberals, it’s the extremests that we can’t have a reasonable discussion with.

    Also, a clarification. While we would like to see the extremests get less support/encouragement and have more people willing to call them out when they spout their nonsense, we are not demanding that they be denounced the way that they are demanding taht we denounce Vox.

    We believe that unless a group is actively trying to eliminate us (and even then, unless they are a credible threat), no group (or individual) deserved to be denounced and shunned.

    That said, we _are_ very quick to point out what we view as hypocrisy when only one side is condemned when virtually identical statements are made by people on both sides. And as a result, when people are demanding that we denounce Vox while they refuse to do so for people tho seem to be doing even worse stuff (death threats vs “bad words and thoughts”), it’s an easy soundbyte to respond with “not before you denounce the extremests on your side”

    all we really want is for them to not be encouraged and not be considered representatives of your side, and that does take people at least saying “now, that’s not reasonable to say, pipe down” on a regular basis when they start spouting things that if nouns were changed (woman/man, black/white, gay/heterosexual, etc) would generate strong reactions from your side.

    Yes, at one time conservatives were every bit as bad in their behaviour, if not worse (noting the KKK), but the difference is between a group that learned to not be as bad (even if it took them loosing power to make it happen) and one that went bad after gaining power. while some on the left point at old sins and say “they used to be oppressors, not it’s their turn to be oppressed” some on the other side are saying “see, they are every bit as bad as the people they replaced, they were just hiding it. Maby those things weren’t as bad after all if they are doing the same thing.

    If two people have comitted the same sins, the one who reformed is a better person than the one who was sin free for a long time and then turned to sin

    P.S as for your default assumption of “christian”, that very much depends on the political environment.

    If I’m in a very “Liberal” setting, I assume the default is either “atheist” and am surprised to learn otherwise (with some exceptions, black and Hispanic groups mainly). In large part this is based on the constant mantra that “Christians can’t be scientists because they ignore evidence and believe in things that have no evidence, and are therefor ignorant savages who are hopeless”

  234. Listen, SJW is just shorthand for intersectional gender feminism. It’s easier to type. But now it’s time to go back to intersectional gender feminism, because that is exactly what these people are. They are not “liberals,” and their idea of “social justice” consists entirely of asking white men to stop acting like white men. There are no wrongs to be righted in SFF but you can wreck the joint imagining there are.

  235. Personally, I use SJW in much the same way I might refer to the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, or the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.

  236. @mary re: diversity.

    it’s not christian/morman/etc it’s more liberal/libertarian/conservative/etc mostly the idea that it’s Ok, if not outright good to disagree.

    the idea that “there are no wrong tactics, just wrong targets” that some on the far left have voiced is the exact opposite of what we are looking for. If a tactic can’t be used against anyone, then it’s not a good tactic to use (note, this is the ideal, we are all human and no human is perfect)

  237. Ms. Kowel,
    While it is, perhaps, true that most people in this thread are Christian, I submit to you that most writers are not Christian–or, if they are, it really doesn’t come through in their work.
    At all.

  238. I dropped a link in Brad’s post after this one to an article about what the guy calls millennial social justice bullies. (I wouldn’t characterize this as a “millennial” thing but…) The author identifies as a liberal and someone dedicated to social justice. He makes some very good points… primarily, that the goal of social justice can not be met by playing games with language such that you’ve (whoever you are) insisted upon a definition of “racism” or “sexism” that absolves you in all circumstances from being guilty of those things. This is Orwellian, at the very least. Forcing people to pretend that a lie is true in service to the narrative does not *work* to achieve the stated goals. It will destroy those goals. And the author explains that he WILL be attacked for making his criticisms of this current trend in social justice, because criticisms are not allowed. He also addresses the logical irrationality of viewing issues through a narrow perspective and expecting to get anything but an ever more fractured and fragmented sorting of people into competing groups. (What us Bad Guys like to term… the hierarchy of oppression.)

  239. I just want to drop a note of congratulations and thanks to Ms. Kowal for being willing to come here and talk and listen, and for her classy note in recusing herself from next year’s nomination in order to help broaden the voting pool. Thank you very much, Ms. K.

  240. @Mary – “I think it’s because you don’t hang out with us, honestly. Because I’ve called Scalzi out for being insensitive and stupid and so has Tempest, and I’ve called Tempest out for crossing lines, and she’s called me out. Teresa? I’ve only met her a couple of times and don’t read Making Light so can’t answer that…I have called Scalzi out. Also ripped him a new one to his face over the Bulletin, which was badly mishandled. Also to K.T. Bradford when I thought she was bullying someone, which nearly cost me a friendship, but we worked through it.”

    Fair enough and thank you for answering…I wonder, though: do you think this kind of self-policing, for lack of a better word, is happening in general or is it just the nice folks like you?

    I don’t expect, and think it would be ridiculous to expect, that private discussions and quarrels should be aired out in public so I get that there’s a level of privacy to some of this that we will never and probably should never breach. But from a “lowly” fan perspective what I see is Scalzi being an ass to people online that he disagrees with and usually those people are ones who believe the things I believe. In return, he’s acclaimed and back-patted, his every work gets nominated for awards, and it appears that he represents the community. Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Tempest Bradford, and others do similar things and the cycle feels the same. And I, as a fan, don’t feel welcome or wanted because I, as a person, think the wrong things and am therefore not worth respect.

    I guess that’s a long-winded way of asking two things: do you think the community holds itself accountable to be accepting and tolerant of all (beyond just your own personal actions) and how can “normal” fans like myself be made to feel more welcome when the loudest, most public voices are often the ones telling us we DON’T belong?

  241. I think I completely misunderstood your question in the first place. And I’m still a little confused. In your question about calls for diversity not including ideological diversity you mentioned Christians and Mormons, but now you seem to be saying that thinking about religion is bad.

    I think where we may be going astray is that you were trying to clarify someone else’s question, so all the wires have been crossed. Should we try again or just leave it as confusing?

    I had to go back and read it; it really wasn’t originally a question. The original comment was you saying “I believe that SFF should be more inclusive and diverse“, the commenter said “IThe only disagreement would be the need to add different political viewpoints to the list“, you asked for clarification, and I responded. My response was basically “every time people call for diversity they don’t seem to mean inclusive of other political ideologies”; religion came into it in my example that in academia (another place where calls for diversity are frequent) diversity doesn’t seem to extend to religions that tend to skew conservative ideologically.

    My second comment was that thinking about diversity in such broad terms as ‘religion’ or ‘ethnic background’ these days doesn’t capture the true nuances of humanity. I’m not sure it’s right to think of it beyond individuals. Which is more diverse: people of backgrounds that differ on paper that all write identical Space Opera, or people with superficially identical backgrounds that write across all the subgenres of SF&F? For the purposes of expanding SF&F, the diversity of stories may be more important than the diversity of authors, especially when that authorial diversity is a superficial tallying of ethnic groups and religions.

  242. WELCOME TO THIS WEEK’S EPISODE OF HOW THE MORAL ETHOS TURNS.

    “Dandy MxFopperson @rosefox · 2h 2 hours ago That’s twice this weekend that someone’s explicit and careful demonstration of respect for me has brought tears to my eyes.”

    “Dandy McFopperson ‏@rosefox 11h11 hours ago @bees_ja I got lucky: @sinboy taught me to value kindness when I was 23, before I had a chance to really mess my life up with rage and hate.”

    “Dandy MxFopperson ‏@rosefox May 20 I’d say most white men should come with TWs for unthinking privileged arrogance, but that’s like saying books need TWs for contains words'”.

    Hahahah. Wotta gal!

  243. None of this even makes any sense. So the most interesting literature – and one that must be pushed and promoted – is from the greatest outlier, the furthest from some imaginary default. Keep in mind, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything by way of conveying intelligent artistry, storytelling ability, true eccentricity, iconoclasm, or anything really. it’s statistically shooting in a barrel so as to hit the smallest fish. And somehow that all translates into better work.

    Actually, that translates into killing SF. It is asking not one single literary question. It’s, no, not this skin, no, not this religion, no, not this sexual expression. Is that how a fucking editor chooses fiction? It’s just a quota system to even out a demographic and called “justice” and “righting wrongs.”

    There is no such thing as a statistical outlier equaling a good painter, a better architect, a better storyteller. This is nothing more than a goofy soup of racial and sexual jealously and resentments, affirmative active diversity hires which pie-charts art in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with art. That is NOT diversity in any real sense of the term; it is a two-headed snake, a square ball of twine. I just can’t imagine anyone with brains thinking that equals any kind of literary or artistic sense. Certainly there’s been no sign of improvement in the genre and every sign of shuttling in shit writers who have no talent. Not only that, by an amazing coincidence they have a habit of writing anti-white racial revenge fiction, like spoiled, smug, racist, brats. Payback for what: not being a part of a demographic mainstream?

    Writing an “SJW is someone who thinks that people ought to be treated equally and with respect, and that wrongs should be redressed” is hilariously smug and arrogant. Where are these people who think – as a default – that people should be treated unequally and without respect? Who is that? What the fuck makes you so much better than everyone else? Considering that at best translates 100% of the time to punishing men, whites and heterosexuals as an entire group for nothing more than being a demographic majority and at worse defaming them, I think the words “equally” and “respect” have been dropped into a deep dark lake. Because that’s what the bottom line here is – that straight white men default to treating people with disrespect and unequally, because that’s always the ones targeted as the racists, the sexists, the homophobes. Well we don’t have any Sufis in the table of contents so let’s choose a Sufi.

    Intersectional feminism is a fuck of an ideology that uses nice words to hide a rancid politicized disdain for straight white men. Given these justifications, this non-stop harassment of straight white men is going to continue, because all that semantic gibberish trumps a simple dictionary definition of “harassment.” I can’t even imagine the dissonance it takes to admit you pie-chart literature and then claim you got angry when it was suggested you didn’t choose a story because you liked it when you Tweeted that shit about no white men winning. And if you’re fascinated with statistical outliers or actuary tables, why not go into insurance and leave art alone? Because I don’t think our idea of “liked” is the same. I “like” good fiction. I don’t “like” fiction written by a one-eyed Sikh with arthritis who grew up in Hungary and so who lives at the far end of “the multiplicatively privileged,” the “‘white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, Christian, and financially secure.'”

    Fuck all of that and fuck intersectional feminism. It is one giant ball of boutique KKK shit.

  244. @LoupFou79 says: Fair enough and thank you for answering…I wonder, though: do you think this kind of self-policing, for lack of a better word, is happening in general or is it just the nice folks like you? … I guess that’s a long-winded way of asking two things: do you think the community holds itself accountable to be accepting and tolerant of all (beyond just your own personal actions) and how can “normal” fans like myself be made to feel more welcome when the loudest, most public voices are often the ones telling us we DON’T belong?

    Yes. The self-policing definitely happens. OMG does it happen. As I say, I’ve been called out on things. But, how many of those call-outs get linked to over here? I’m betting it’s mostly links to things that make people angry, yes? I also don’t think that the larger SFF community is organized in the way that the Sad Puppies are, so there aren’t big group actions.

    As for does the community hold itself accountable and the idea of a ‘normal’ fan being made to feel more welcome… What’s interesting about this is that we have the EXACT SAME conversation about young, liberal fans, and fans of colour, and LGBT fans, who feel like the loudest, most public voices are telling them that THEY don’t belong. That fiction that includes them is crap and nothing but a series of checkboxes. People, regardless of beliefs, get loud when they feel like they aren’t being heard.

    All I can say is that, yes, I think the community in general, is accepting. But that the larger SFF community, which includes you and me and everyone who likes SFF, needs to do a better job at outreach. Because when I go to conventions, the notion that it’s a liberal bastion is… funny.

    I don’t doubt that Larry had the experiences he talks about at WorldCon, but he also had good experiences, too. He talked about them in 2011 and isn’t now. I’ve had negative experiences, too, of listening to someone be horrifyingly sexist and have no one say anything to them. I’ve had my ass grabbed. I just don’t equate that with the entirety of the convention. And I know, damn well, that there’s a ton of conservative authors — (Even, gasp, libertarians) — at SFF conventions. I think you have to pick the con you go to.

    WisCon? You’d learn a lot, but probably would not feel comfortable. Just as I’m not entirely comfortable at WindyCon.

    That got long and rambly, but does it come close to answering your question?

  245. Fiction that is not allowed to have demographic racial-sexual spikes is by definition a series of checkboxes. Imagine doing that to boxing or basketball.

    That being the case, any fiction which includes a smoothed-over pie-chart is going to include crap. Not because the people in it or writing it are crap because of their identity, but because their identity supersedes the art. That is the argument, and it is disingenuous to keep harping that it is because we are anti-woman, anti-non-white, and anti-gay.

    It is not our fault people like Sam Miller, Aliette de Bodard, N. K. Jemisin and Saladin Ahmed have been ruthlessly exploited as diversity hires nor that they are more than happy to allow that and to put gay, Asian, black and Muslim out in front of their fiction. It’s one thing to put “Hugo Winner” on the cover of a book and quite another to put “gay, Asian, black and Muslim” on the cover of a book. It is simply false to say us recognizing that won’t make good fiction is the same as a white homophobic supremacy. If you checkmark white men into rap music or college basketball what you will end up with is crap and the destruction of a meritocracy. Opposing that is not opposing whites. I do not want to see more whites in middle weight boxing nor would I ever write soulless racist garbage about the “black savior” who always scores the winning basket in the NBA playoffs. I see humans and that is plenty – everything in fact.

    If someone came into middle weight boxing and declared they were boycotting boxing cards that had no whites they’d be laughed out of the building. “OH please help me de-black my boxing viewing habits.” “Don’t watch black or Latino boxers for a year.” Putting it like that – especially considering the source – reveals such things for the racist garbage it is, a gaping irony for a genre like SF which is supposed to have an expertise at engaging such perceptual shifts. The fact it routinely can no longer do that reveals the depths to which SF has sunk. Gender feminism is the bad guy in Orwell’s 1984, not the good guy.

    Given the constant rhetoric about diversity, it’s tough to argue Alyssa Wong is not being used as yet another diversity hire. She’s gay, she’s Asian – check. Why is a story written in a writer’s workshop up for a Nebula? Kai Ashante Wilson too. And another amazing coincidence: both revenge fantasies about immoral men and whites.

    Aside from the fact “diversity” is being used as a cover to enable and justify hate speech about straight white men defaulting to a patriarchy of women-hating racist homophobes, it is a mechanism which destroys the viability of a community to produce art.

    I will not argue this year’s Hugo ballot represents a best foot forward. What I will argue is – compared to what? People are arguing Sad Puppies has destroyed the viability of the Hugos to represent a chance to present the best in fiction. We are arguing that it was already a corpse. Are we to really believe – based on its awards – that Ancillary Justice is the greatest SF novel of all time, or that core SFF’s institutions are saturated with feminist gender dogma? Which? What an amazing coincidence it is that AJ not only flashes the core gender feminist doctrine of the “performative,” but then throws it aside and never actually uses or exploits it in the novel itself. In other words it check boxes it and then throws it off the fantail. Virtually every single review of AJ mentions gender first and foremost. Thrown onto its own merits, it is an average SF novel that will disappear into history without even a ripple.

    As for religious objections to homosexuality – a thing I personally have no use for whatsoever – it is hard to maintain credibility by highlighting Christian objections while pretending Muslim objections do not exist. This is once again a case of “compared to what” – the single most hated phrase in intersectional feminist rhetoric. Either be consistent in this regard or don’t be – either tolerate religion or don’t. “Religion” is a neutral word. Conspicuously giving Islam a pass on this issue highlights what the real objection is, and it is the same as always within intersectional feminism; the target isn’t a principled issue of anti-homosexuality at all, but of going after white Christian Westerners while pretending you are not doing that. I hear absolute tons of feminist rhetoric within the SFF community about global issues. Why is there such a gaping black hole of nothing when it comes to soliciting “diverse” fiction from the single most anti-homosexual cluster of nations in the world in terms of actual laws – the Middle East and N. Africa? Why? And who’s in second place: sub-Saharan non-Islamic Africa. Instead we hear about the glories of the non-West this and non-West that from within the most human rights oriented cluster of nations in the world. For people supposedly so expert in detecting “systems,” Islamic culture’s “systems” disappear. Always watch feet, not lips, because that will tell you the truth of who lives where and why. I see no rush of gender feminists embracing Islamic nations.

    Intersectional gender feminism is a lie wrapped in bullshit wrapped in a con game. If one looks at it from a strictly principled point of view – or in other words the way something like blind justice, an umpire and law works – none of it makes any sense. However it makes perfect sense if you look at it as an anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western, anti-heterosexual sexist-racist supremacist cult.

  246. What’s interesting about this is that we have the EXACT SAME conversation about young, liberal fans, and fans of colour, and LGBT fans, who feel like the loudest, most public voices are telling them that THEY don’t belong.

    Without knowing what voices they are hearing, it’s hard to say anything substantive. We’ve posted here SJW voices saying whites, males, and conservatives don’t belong, so we know those exist.

    Part of the problem may be that people have their identity too wrapped up in skin color / gender / sexual orientation / religion. If I was to go into a panel on ‘Post-Scarcity in Science Fiction’, the religion of the panelists doesn’t matter to me, but the ideological diversity does, and if there’s not someone there with a similar ideology to me, then I’m not going to feel represented.

  247. “WisCon? You’d learn a lot,”

    Unlikely that I’d hear anything new. I finished grad school.

  248. Without knowing what voices they are hearing, it’s hard to say anything substantive. We’ve posted here SJW voices saying whites, males, and conservatives don’t belong, so we know those exist.
    I think here is where I’m going to bow out, before it turns into finger pointing. Because, unfortunately, a lot of the voices come from the sad puppies. And I really, really, really don’t want to make anyone feel attacked or angry. Please believe that I think that a lot of it is unintentional, but that doesn’t make it any more comfortable.

    What I might do, is try to open up a conversation on my own blog with definitions and rules of engagement and stuff.

    Many thanks to Brad for letting me stop in and chat a little.

  249. Pingback: Nuther day, Nuther fisking | Mars Is

  250. Pingback: An Account of Juliette Wade’s Withdrawal from Sad Puppies 3 | File 770

Comments are closed.