From first-time Worldcon attendee Michael A. Rothman, who brought his boys along to see what Worldcon and “Fandom” was all about.
See his original Facebook comment here.
I took my kids to WorldCon to expose them to Fandom and I’ve consciously shielded them from any of the politics of the kerfuffle associated with the literary “sides” that were in play.
When we attended, we had good seats and they were excited to see if some of their choices would make it.
Let’s just say that my boys ended up being exposed to some of their categories being utterly eradicated from eligibility due to this thing that I’d shielded them from.
They couldn’t understand why their short story choice evaporated into something called “NO AWARD.”
As I briefly explained, the audience was cheering because of that decision and the MC made a point of saying that cheering was appropriate and boos were not.
My kids were shocked.
Shocked not by not winning but by having an entire category’s rug being pulled out from under it and then having all the adults (many of which were old enough to be their grandparents) cheering for something my kids looked at as an unfair tragedy.
I’ll admit to having feared this outcome – yet this was my children’s introduction to Fandom.
We are driving home and they are of the opinion that they aren’t particularly interested in this “Fandom” thing.
I find that a great shame – and I blame not the people who established the ballots to vote for (for my kids enjoyed a great deal of what they read on the ballots), but as my kids noted – they blame the ones who made them feel “like the rug was pulled out from under me.”
I’d offered Fandom my boys – my boys now reject them.
And yes, the picture below is just before us walking to the Hugo ceremonies. They’re excited about it all. I just find it a pity that they didn’t feel anything other than bewilderment and bitterness toward the people in the auditorium after the ceremonies.
Brad R. Torgersen 
Comments are closed for the night. It’s now 2:49 AM where I am at.
Cross-posting something I originally posted at Sarah Hoyt’s place: Remember what a left-wing hatefest the funeral for Senator Paul Wellstone turned out to be?
Well, Saturday night was the Wellstone Funeral for the Hugo Awards. They’re dead, no matter how the Social Justice Bullies preen and strut.
That “rug pulled out from under me” is how many of us felt in April when we saw those nominations, when it became clear that what should have been “take a thousand top-five lists and see what comes up most often” had been hijacked by people submitting copies of someone else’s list.
(surveys burning wreckage)
Man, they sure saved the hell out of that village, didn’t they?
How was “Wisdom from My Internet”, a collection of moronic tweets, (a) related to SFF and (b) one of the most important works of 2015? It’s because the author was your pal. You’re such a piece of shit. I’m glad everyone actually read your “nominations” and now knows what a fucking weasel you are. No one recommended that on your blog, or any blog. NO ONE, you piece of shit.
Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
If fandom disgusts our kids what future does it have?
Maestro: maybe if you call me a piece of shit a few more times, Michael’s kids will magically love Fandom; instead of walking away convinced that Fandom spurned them in the clutch. The wound that is least easily brushed off, is the wound which is self-inflicted. If we use the Long Form editor category as a gauge, thousands of people didn’t seem to mind how the ballot was put together prior to the April release. But I guess 2,500 determined Trufen decided that the best way to rescue the tribal totem, was to burn down the totem in front of potential young tribe members. They walked away. Just as Toni Weisskopf walked away. And the best most Trufen seem to be able to come up with is, “YOU MADE US DO THIS!” Which is the refrain of abusers and rotten pre-schoolers. Trufans had a chance to be grown-ups. 2,500 Trufans — many of whom were yukking it up at the Hugos — decided they not only did not want to be grown-ups, they were going to show the whole universe that they couldn’t grown-up their way out of a paper bag.
Carlton: the Comic Cons give me hope, because I’ve seen enthusiasm alive and well in those halls. Of course, it’s an unregulated and entirely spontaneous enthusiasm. It hasn’t been checked and vetted and cleared and groomed, the way Trufen demand at Worldcon. Because, clearly, the way you show the world you love a thing, is to actively hate people loving that same thing in an unapproved, entirely unregulated fashion. “Nobody said you were allowed to love the thing! Only we get to love the thing! Only us! Not you! Us!” I haven’t seen that at all, at a Comic Con. We just saw 2,500 people do it at Worldcon. Frankly, I think the 2,500 Trufans just wrote their own epitaph, and all that’s left now is for the heart monitor to be unplugged, and for someone to call the mortuary.
Chris: you mean like 2,500 people voting NO AWARD in lockstep? It’s sadly hilarious seeing your line of argument trotted out. Those 2,500 commited fans of Noah pretty much doubled down on dumb — and obliterated all complaints against “same voting” by committing the most blaring SAME VOTE event in the Hugo’s history. As I said to others, tell it to Michael Rothman’s kids.
Wow from Sad Puppies to Won’t Somebody Think of the Children. Still classy Brad.
@CamestrosFelapton
YOU MADE HIM DO IT!
Ain’t that right,Brad?
Oh no! Brad made me post yet another comment! Darn you Brad!
@CamestrosFelapton
HE MADE ME DO IT TOO!
[Camestros reaches the end of the beach only to see a giant Hugo Award half buried in the sand] Brad finally really made us do it … You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, darn you! Gosh darn you all to heck!
“Maestro: maybe if you call me a piece of shit a few more times, Michael’s kids will magically love Fandom”
They think their insults will persuade us to see their point of view.
Reblogged this on darkumentation and commented:
Sadness at the Hugo Awards:
Brad, I want to congratulate you again. I already did so for doing exactly what you said you would do in terms of rebuking the idea of a small clique getting to control the award based on what they think people should be allowed to read, but I just remembered that you said, way back in the spring.
You remember when you said that no outcome would make you happier than getting more people involved in voting so it wasn’t just the same old small group of deciding the fate of the award for all?
Now that the numbers are out there, it’s clear that this is exactly what happened. The outcome that you said would make you happier than any other came to pass. That’s better than any award.
What a blessing! How can one guy be so lucky? I guess it must just be the rewards of a life lived well.
That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must blog petulantly.
You made me complain about your commnet!
“Wow from Sad Puppies to Won’t Somebody Think of the Children. Still classy Brad.”
And of course, the craven Social Injustice crowd lying and calling Brad and the SPs racist,sexist and homophobic are just *full* of class.
Full of shite’s more like it.
Alexandra,
Wait . . . do Michael’s kids feel differently about Fandom now? I am not sure if you being a troll convinced them that Fandom is awesome yet. Please try harder.
1,200 and 700 voters — many of them new to the game — tried to reward Toni and Sheila.
The clique to end all cliques said, “Go away new kids, this is our sandbox!” and two women who deserve Hugos, got nothing. I mean, I can sort of understand people fragging Toni, because she’s Baen, and Larry and I are Baen authors. There is at least that connection. But why did Fandom decide to punish Sheila? Punishing Sheila?? Really? Again, Michael’s kids saw the whole thing in real time. Please go explain to them what it really means to love science fiction.
To quote from that post: “I’ve consciously shielded them from….”
That’s where the problem comes in.
He made a bet with his kids’ happiness — that people would meekly go along with a slate foisted on them, in despite of either their political opinion (slates are bad!) or their literary opinion (puppy nominees are bad writing) or some combination of the two.
When anyone could tell that was a likely — not a certain, but a definitely likely — outcome.
In effect, he set his kids up for disappointment, and is now angry that they were disappointed.
I hope they enjoyed the rest of the convention — but making a big centerpiece out of an event that could be *expected* to be contentious? Not a wise choice.
Really? That’s the best you’ve got? Michael’s a bad father because he let his kids make up their own minds?
Nobody called him a bad father. Saying he made one mistake doesn’t make him “a bad father.” But it was definitely a mistake.
” Michael’s a bad father because he let his kids make up their own minds?”
How you get from “He consciously shielded them from any of the politics” to “let them make up their own minds” I can’t quite figure out.
He didn’t give them information that would have helped explain what was about to happen, and then is upset with what happened because it upset his kids. I don’t think that can be laid at the feet of “fandom”.
Here’s another way to look at it: If a parent had carefully shielded their children from any of the criticism of Hilary Clinton, and then took them, not to a Clinton rally, but to an open forum which they had good reason to believe might be dominated by Republicans, and then felt mortified that their children were hearing such terrible things about Clinton and wanted to give up on politics — would you consider that parent had done their children a good service?
I’m sure that Michael had good intentions; most parents do. He made a mistake — most parents, at one time or another do. But blaming fandom for it, as if this were some great failing — that’s just adding to the mistake.
It’s an honest mistake too.
Cripes, when I was a kid I thought Heinlein was God. Teen aged boys carrying guns? Facing hardships and obstacles a full grown man would? Awesome! – it fired the imagination! To think that guys as cool and smart as Heinlein…writing stories for us kids? Heinlein was a gift from God to us kids kinda like you are today, Brad.
Today I would shield my kids from SF at all costs. Hate to say it, but the genre is infested with skunks using it to push sodomy, militant feminism, socialism and other leftist agendas. From a literary standpoint I really don’t have to worry about it I suppose – this poorly written dreck and propaganda turns off kids too.
Er? How do you shield kids from that sort of thing anyway? It’s 2015, they both look old enough to use Google – he took them to a convention and they didn’t even Google about what they going to? Yeah, right, sure sure…
Yes yes, I know you made them do it.
You crack me up Brad.
I assume it goes without saying that you apologized to those kids for your part in the whole affair, given how concerned you are about their experience.
This really does say it all to me. Younger son in the picture looks like I think I would have looked at that age going to something like this. If, that is, it weren’t so politically regimented that my vote for coolest SF story wouldn’t count because of the SJWs voting “No Award” to tear down the place. Seriously I was thinking about going to WorldCon next year … KC isn’t far from where I live … but if it’s all a bunch of snark and politics, sheesh. Isn’t there anyplace that’s just plain fun anymore? Maybe I can afford ComicCon next year …
I had the same reaction, Michael. And I knew nothing of the politics at play until after the ceremony, as this was my family’s first WorldCon/Hugos (the con itself was very welcoming). As a self-described Conservatarian, I felt very unwelcome in that auditorium. We left early, but only after waiting for one of my all-time favorite films to win (Guardians). The cheering for the No Awards was extremely disturbing to witness. And no, it wasn’t ALL the adults in the room, but most of them. Shameful.
Charles, don’t let the Hugos keep you from the WorldCon. The con itself was great.
There’s a time and a place to shield your kids to one degree or another. Me, I’d rather grapple with finding a simple way to explain necessary context – as opposed to leaving out the context entirely. To use a Mormon metaphor, it’s a bit like taking your kids to the Hill Cumorah pageant without mentioning that there are going to be protestors with bullhorns.
Bring the boys to DragonCon instead. It’s not immune to the SJW carnage, but it hasn’t been thoroughly invaded by it yet, either.
Why are you not mad at yourself for what your kids experienced? This is the fault of your people. You’re the ones who hijacked the arcane nomination process to kick out minorities and different subgenres of scifi.
Your group is the one that tried to make the Hugo awards ONLY about white men and ONLY about a particular type of scifi. Of course, this upset people, and they wanted to show that they weren’t OK with you trying to kick out all other authors to preserve a pointless hegemony. Do you expect people to just sit down and go “Oh, ok, no minorities. Only one genre of scifi is allowed. This is fine.”?
You tried to kick everyone out- and they showed you that they’re not OK with that. You should be ashamed of ruining the event for your kids. You should be ashamed at showing them such a bad example by being petty, arbitrary, excluding others, acting like your preferences are the only ones that matter, etc etc.
I suppose it wouldn’t have been all that difficult to give the kids a heads-up ahead of time:
“Kids… science fiction is made up of a bunch of developmentally stunted babies, but there are good parts too. Please don’t be disturbed by any behavior you witness because I fully expect full grown adult tantrums and soiled diapers tonight.”
Would that satisfy those of you who think the kids should have been given “context?”
Oh dear dog… another “no minorities and only one genre of science fiction”… Three Body Problem, which both Brad and VD praised… VD stating that the only reason that it wasn’t on the RP slate was he hadn’t read it in time… would have LOST to a white woman if the Puppies hadn’t been involved.
Oh, how I fondly recall the accusations earlier this year… “You hypocrites! You nominated this story and it’s not even violent! This is literary, it’s not even anything like what you said ALL science fiction should be!” That was truly a hoot.
I won’t say that I’m “fond” to recall the other accusations… the ones that forced “diverse” authors off the ballot for fear of being attacked by the “tolerant”.
Keep on fighting the straw armies… keep on believing what you’re told by others. I realize that a great number of the No Award votes were by people who honestly believed what they were told. Easily led for a good cause and willing to work in concert, to vote exactly the way requested… to fight evil, who wouldn’t?
But you are deceived. What matters now is if you CARE that you were lied to or not.
@Julie: ““Kids… science fiction is made up of a bunch of developmentally stunted babies, but there are good parts too. Please don’t be disturbed by any behavior you witness because I fully expect full grown adult tantrums and soiled diapers tonight.”
Yeah, no; not a good caveat. “There’s been a lot of controversy about the way things got put on the ballot, and some people are very angry with it. I don’t know what will happen tonight; there may be cases where things don’t win because people were angry with how the nominations were done” — there. Try that on for size.
“Three Body Problem, which both Brad and VD praised… VD stating that the only reason that it wasn’t on the RP slate was he hadn’t read it in time… would have LOST to a white woman if the Puppies hadn’t been involved. ”
But right here — *right here* — is the complaint that many people have about the slate idea in general. Why should it matter so much if *one person* didn’t read a given book in a given year? The answer, of course, is that it shouldn’t — but with slates, it does, especially of the RP “If you respect me, vote exactly this list” variety.
And lastly…
In my mind the most important thing, the “event” that actually matters about the Hugo award ceremony isn’t the fight. It’s not the “sides” nor was it the “drama.”
In my mind the most important thing was the casual, unthinking, and wholly accepted as NORMAL dismissal of a best selling author as a bad writer and hack. By name.
Sci-fi fandom, certainly World Con, certainly the “community” is elitist and exclusive. This is simply a fact. Pointing this out over the last many months… explaining just how *profoundly* unwelcoming the “community” can be… was twisted into some weird “you’re just racists” excuse which allowed everyone to feel both superior and require absolutely no examination of the convention, fandom, or “community” experience for an enormous number of people. GRR Martin almost got there, talking to Larry, but eventually decided, no, Larry was just imagining things and this experiences were not real.
For most Puppies those experiences are not just real, they’re expected, common… they are the reaction to repeated exposure to CHORFS… to the elitists who simply can not possibly imagine that anyone in a panel audience doesn’t think exactly the way they do. Fans of popular authors? Just go away. Who wants you? The books you love are drek. The author you admire is a hack.
There is an enormous difference between praising a particularly skilled author in public and with calling out another author by name and explaining that they’re laughably (lets all laugh) poor writers.
Those who go on and on and on about “inclusiveness” have a log in their eyes so huge they can’t even see just how those casual digs, those laughs, those mockings put up walls and un-welcome signs. After all… everyone in the audience LOOKS just like them… so they simply must think like them too.
Slates…
Well over 2K completely lock step votes looses you the right to EVER complain about a “slate” ever again.
Hey, can I blame Brad for the flyer and ribbon kerfuffle now?
I mean, I know I owned it already, but maybe I was just confused.
Oh… I’ll save Brad the bother…
“YOU MADE US DO IT!”
🙂 The ribbons were cute.
I deliberately recused myself this year, and Larry Correia withrdrew after his own nomination, and both of these things directly contributed to The Three Body Problem scooting up into the top five. Not that anyone who hates us actually gives us any credit for it, of course. Facts don’t matter. Hating us is all that matters. Because they love this field so much.
Silvermink,
I voted for people. Those kids voted for people too. On Saturday night, the no-people voters “won” and burned it all down. I keep saying it: this is the wound that “True Fandom” cannot brush off. Doubtless “True Fandom” and its ideological hangers-on will exonerate themselves and convince themselves of their righteous purity. The ghetto will find itself blameless.
And the slow grind of time wears the crumbly stone of Worldcon toward the nub.
Okay, Julie, I literally laughed out loud. Thanks for that.
SF Awards should join Government and Sausage on the list of “Things You Won’t Enjoy After You Watch Them Being Made”.
Seriously, I’ve burned out on Worldcon because of the politics, Comic-Con because of the cost (EVERYTHING costs extra, it seems…) and most of the other “Big” cons. Give me a local con with an established history and a clear charter that doesn’t cotton to pearl-clutchers, and I’m a happy (provisional) intelligence.
With all respect, some of us who voted “No Award” in several (but not all) categories did so not “in lock-step,” but solely because we were disappointed with the quality of the nominees. I do not believe that applies to all 2500 votes, but it could. I also do not expect that any Puppy supporters will believe it did, but I would ask that you consider the possibility that even those of us who stand on the other side have the ability to think for ourselves (unlike, self-admittedly, the Rabid Puppy voters).
“…and lastly…” Very well said, Julie!
The fact that the editor categories got no-awarded proves you a liar., brainklowe. Maybe YOU were disappointed in the quality of the stories and voted for editors, but every SINGLE VOTE that no awarded the editor categories was done in obedience to orders.
Ah Brad. That’s the new narrative they seem to be trying to less than subtly spin right now. It’s Sad Puppies’ fault that the ‘trufen’ behaved so badly, threw their tantrum, voted No Award lockstep showing their real lack of inclusivity if an author is liked by someone of unapproved politics, revealed to the world that they were ugly racist bigots with their Hare Krishna jokes and being against women who don’t obediently follow their point of view, showed their towering bullying misogyny when PNH screamed obscenities at Jagi Lamplighter, their cheering and hostility driving away first time Hugo-awards viewers.
Yep, somehow, we Sad Puppies have such awesome powers of mind control, we MAKE them behave badly somehow.
It’s a pretty shit superpower. Can I trade it for telekinesis please? Y’know, as part of my sneaky vixen member bonus pack thing. /tongue in cheek
“Slates…
Well over 2K completely lock step votes looses you the right to EVER complain about a “slate” ever again.”
I’d like to see your evidence. For example, no one could tell the difference between “No Award for Best Novella because none of them were Hugo-worthy” and “No Award for Best Novella because they’re all slates”.
Furthermore; there’s a difference (to my lights, at least) between “We choose not to reward what we consider cheating” and “We arrange things so that your only choices are between the people *we* pick.” But you can argue that.
Of course, I’m in favor of EPH — how do you feel about it?
“The fact that the editor categories got no-awarded proves you a liar., brainklowe. Maybe YOU were disappointed in the quality of the stories and voted for editors, but every SINGLE VOTE that no awarded the editor categories was done in obedience to orders.”
Some people did not feel they had enough information to vote on editors usefully, or have historically not voted because they feel the category is broken.
Your assertion, all-caps though it may be, is demonstrably false. Making you, at *best*, mistaken, at worst a liar, and your accusation of Brian Klowe also false.
@J G: “Your group is the one that tried to make the Hugo awards ONLY about white men”
Hmm…how should I put this?
Fuck you.
Fuck you.
FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU.
It was a white man who had received a record number of votes for Best Editor, wasn’t it? It was solely a white man who wrote Guardians of the Galaxy, huh?
You can stop pretending you’re fighting for the rights of women and minorities, because you don’t give a fuck about them. You don’t give a fuck about respecting women and minorities whenever those people don’t agree with you. You don’t give a fuck about the many women and minorities who support and were supported by the Puppies.
I am a lesbian. And if that immature fucking farce of an “awards ceremony” and the mindless CELEBRATED gate-keeping of their god-given right to appoint works as “best” is you people trying to care about people like me, then you can all go fuck yourselves.
(Apologies for the harsh tone, but yanno, it’s really J G’s fault.)
Look… You don’t have enough info you do not vote No Award. Or did they not explain to you how the voting works? You claimed the votes were merit based. The stories were just that bad. That is possibly legit. The editor categories are different. If you can’t judge then skip the category… But that’s not what happened. People voted on orders lock step in obedience… Pretty proud of it too. A few claim the entries deserved it… That’s a matter of taste. Editors are a different matter and prove that those votes were not even pretending to be merit based.
@sschwartzoak:
Because there’s no choice between “Voting For A Particular Person” and “Voting And Saying Nobody Should Get This Award”, right?
Something simple, like “Not Voting”… which is not, I may remind you, the same as “Voting ‘None'”.
Yeah, it would’ve been better if the terrible writing of your friends won awards, through your cheating. That would’ve been a much better lesson for the kids.
You are true FILTH, a disgrace to the human race. (“Wisdom From My Internet” — REALLY, Brad? You thought that was Hugo worthy? A book of random tweets? Tweets that had nothing to do with SFF whatsoever? A “coincidence” that’s the writer is your best friend? Fuck you.)
@J G: “Your group is the one that tried to make the Hugo awards ONLY about white men”
Snort! Way to erroneously assume. Uh, not part of a “group.” What part of “This was our first WorldCon/Hugos attendance” is unclear? We’re total newbies. Got it?
BTW, Eris: Thanks for validating the unwelcoming feeling my husband and I got, before even knowing about any of this BS, as completely legit. I knew it wasn’t just me.
Look, those of you who are attacking the Sad Puppies, here’s what you don’t seem to get: To everyone outside of your clique you’re the bad guys. Maybe you think you were justified, maybe you honestly believe that you had no other option.
There is no way you can spin this to look good to the people who aren’t involved in the politics and just want to read and enjoy science fiction. And I realize that you may not care–maybe you just want to keep your little island nation pure.
But I bet the publishers care. I bet the authors care. I bet the people who make their living selling books and movies and games care.
I’m not part of any Puppies. I didn’t vote, didn’t buy a membership. I’m a self-published author. A guy like me has no more chance to be nominated for a Hugo–much less win–than to be in the running for a Nobel Prize.
Up until now, I haven’t much cared. If you had mobilized your proxies to vote for someone else to win in those five categories I would have shrugged and moved on and forgotten all about it by Labor Day.
What you did in voting in as many No Awards in one year as in the entire prior history of the Hugo awards is to tell everyone that the award is worthless. You just made “Hugo Award Winning” into the mark of Cain. You didn’t just alienate those two kids–you alienated a huge majority of the people who have been keeping the businesses that publish science fiction afloat.
“No Award” is also a frequent vote for people who disagree with the existence of a category.
And, since I knew that, in both Long- and Short- form, there were people who didn’t deserve a Hugo, what, pray tell, was I supposed to do? List the others (also slate-nominees) at random, and then the ones I *knew* didn’t deserve it?
If you ally yourself with an anti-democratic culture war, even by inaction, you lose your right to complain that people aren’t treating you democratically and fairly.
“What you did in voting in as many No Awards in one year as in the entire prior history of the Hugo awards is to tell everyone that the award is worthless. You just made “Hugo Award Winning” into the mark of Cain. You didn’t just alienate those two kids–you alienated a huge majority of the people who have been keeping the businesses that publish science fiction afloat.”
Only in your mind, and in the mind of people you can convince that’s so.
If someone is *stupid* enough to believe that somehow, a vote on a scandal-ridden Hugo affects the quality of Hugo winners past, or Hugo-winners future, that’s not my problem.
To extend the metaphor: Is the Heisman award worthless? Is any kind of national college football championship worthless? What about baseball’s MVP award? Or the winner of the Tour de France? All events touched by scandal, with gaps in their history due to it — yet, somehow, they survive.
Only if enough people believe your “Oh, they’re worthless now!” rhetoric will that be so; and I see no reason for them to believe it.
It’s not my rhetoric. I’m just telling you how it looks. From a marketing standpoint, the “No Award” votes were a bad move. Most people aren’t going to know about how the voting was conducted or who the sides were or why there was any controversy.
What they are going to see is that one side voted not to award anyone rather than let the other side win. That looks bad. People in the audience cheering when two women who received more votes than had ever been cast in their category were denied awards looks bad.
That’s all I’m saying. This is going to be public relations hit for science fiction publishers in general and Tor in particular. Your actions have damaged the company that publishes George R R Martin and John Scalzi. No matter what you think you were doing, the fact is that those “stupid” readers you refer to make up the bulk of the book buying public.
Agreed, MishaBurnett.
” From a marketing standpoint, the “No Award” votes were a bad move. Most people aren’t going to know about how the voting was conducted or who the sides were or why there was any controversy. ”
And if they only go on that very shallow basis, they were never terribly engaged to begin with.
To top it all off — whether or not it was “your rhetoric” before, it is becoming yours now, by the way you spin it. One could easily portray it as “a small cabal of culture warriors tried to take over the awards, and failed.” — which would be fine for the Hugos, and for SF/F in general.
But that’s not the line you’re taking, which means you’re putting that political line above the wellbeing of the field — and then claiming that other people are making you do the damage.
I repeat: Are the Heismans dead? Is the Tour de France? They suffered, and recovered, and that was from a far worse, and far more pervasive, set of scandals.
If you want to push the Puppy narrative that you believe will hurt SF, go ahead; but be aware that it is your choice to do so.
People like sschwartzoak make me feel super-eager to watch the pretty lights and sparkling colors as VD and the RPs burn the Hugos to the ground next year, and the year after, and the year after.
All while the brain-dead pretend they didn’t do it to themselves in 2015. Lovely. Bring popcorn.
“People like sschwartzoak make me feel super-eager to watch the pretty lights and sparkling colors as VD and the RPs burn the Hugos to the ground next year, and the year after, and the year after.”
They’ll have to arrange for a lot more votes, apparently, to do so.
And if the choice was “award Hugos to substandard work nominated as part of someone’s combination jealous fit/culture war” or “no award”, I know which I’d pick.
Hey “JG”, “Eris” (HAIL ERIS!) was quoting the much earlier comment by “J G”.
You might find it useful to pick a slightly more distinguishing handle.
“Bloc voting is bad except when we do it.”
Let it burn. Let it all burn. Let us toast marshmallows on the bones of a dead award.
http://www.nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/
Pretty much this. In triplicate. I am not sure that the True Fans, by roping in the media to attack the Puppies on specious identitarian thought-crime grounds, realized that the big world decided to peer inside and have a look, and the True Fans were probably beginning to win in the big world’s eyes . . . right up until they decided the best way to save the Hugos from being held hostage, was to shoot the hostage.
Oops.
Now the True Fans are back to looking like mean little nerds in a sandbox, who don’t know how to share. They can cry a lot on the shoulders of Social Justice, but that’s a shoulder which is busily attacking and alienating more and more non-partisan people every hour.
What’s the old saying? “Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.”
My way or the highway. How the puppy kickers felt on Saturday:
“They’ll have to arrange for a lot more votes, apparently, to do so. ”
Pity that Vox Day can only be persuaded not to go nuclear once, and once only.
Pity that your folks called attention to themselves among the 15,000 strong of GamerGate, and those folks LOVE a good fight. Yeah, they’ll be hard to persuade to jine up.
Lord, the tears will be delicious!
Ain’t it strange that the sort of people who speak the most loudly against erasing women and non-whites will set about erasing women and non-whites who don’t share their views? Ain’t it strange that the sort of people who decry stereotypes are the sort of people who’ll stereotype sff and fandom?
Good going Mr. Torgersen. Take care of yourself.
If you’re going to bring the 15K of Gamergate next year that would be grand.
I will be excited to see what the Consuite has.
It’ll also make the fixes to the nomination process easier to ratify.
Okay, it’s “people who aren’t terribly engaged” who buy books and read books and keep publishers in business.
You’ve won the hearts and minds of the 3500 or 5500 or however many voting attendees you suborned to sweep the Hugos with “No Award”. But trust me on this, 5500 sales is not going to put food on the table for very long.
You’re talking about ethics. I’m talking about business. Maybe you’re absolutely right. It doesn’t matter. New Coke was probably a healthier beverage, too, but it damned near sunk the company.
In the eyes of the people who haven’t been following this issue and weren’t there, you look bad. I’m not telling you this because I hate you or I think you’re wrong. I’m just letting you know that your fly is open. What you do with that information is up to you.
“Okay, it’s “people who aren’t terribly engaged” who buy books and read books and keep publishers in business. ”
And if they’re not terribly engaged, then they won’t know about this, or care about this — unless, of course, you decide that it’s more important to spread the narrative than help the field, which ,s again, your choice.
“In the eyes of the people who haven’t been following this issue and weren’t there, you look bad.”
This is one of those well-nigh unverifiable things, because “the lurkers support me in email” has been problematic since email began. 🙂 What I’ve seen is not that — similar to the way most people I’ve run across who had heard a bit about Gamergate but not followed it thought it was a movement of harassers and stalkers. I suspect that what you’ve heard, and what I’ve heard, are both heavily shaped by the circles we move in.
“Pity that Vox Day can only be persuaded not to go nuclear once, and once only.
Pity that your folks called attention to themselves among the 15,000 strong of GamerGate, and those folks LOVE a good fight. Yeah, they’ll be hard to persuade to jine up.”
When it costs them $40 to do so, and they lost the last round? We’ll see. Of course, if they do, as we’ve seen this time around, there will be a response. And then a response, and so on, and so forth. No one benefits save, perhaps, the U.S. Post Office or WorldCons future, depending on whether or not people agree to have their packets emailed to them, or require snail mail.
I don’t think a lot of people on any of the sides of this issue are happy about what happened this year with the Hugos. I do feel bad that some kids who wanted to see their votes/opinions matter were disappointed. I also feel disappointed with fellow fans that felt the desire to cheer at the No Awards.
I felt a lot of the same disappointment when the nomination lists came out earlier in the year and nothing that I spent weeks reading through, ranking, and then decided to nominate in any of the short fiction categories was selected, having been bumped out by works nominated en mass by the slates. I am a engineer / scientist in my day job and spent weeks developing educated decisions on what I thought really represented the best of the genre — well written, played with interesting science, etc.
I did read all the nominees, and I didn’t vote No Award lightly above nominees in any category. But yeah, I will admit I did in fact vote No Award above many nominees in many categories, as the quality just didn’t match what I had seen in other works from 2014. I will admit that I abstained voting in some categories altogether (editor) as I recognized as a non-writer that I didn’t really know enough about the role of editor to give a fair assessment. But as an avid reader / fan of the genre, I didn’t have fun with the Hugos this year. I don’t think many people did.
Just a couple of things to say, before I go crash (drove from Spokane straight through to BC in one go and am consequently a bit weary):
1) I overheard a number of conversations around the Doubletree and on the convention floor where people were discussing how they would fear no Puppies, offering to sell “Fear No Puppies” shirts, buttons, etc. More than a few conversations about how many more votes were needed for critical categories – which made me wonder how they knew that, too. I did not see one person identifying visible as a Puppy, Sad, Rabid, Mutt or any other. I know I felt distinctly as though identifying as a Puppy sympathizer would make my con experience considerably less enjoyable.
2) I find it interested that the only example I’ve heard of so far of egregiously bad on-site behaviour came from someone who is definitely an anti-puppy. Regardless of one’s feelings on the subject, there is NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for how Mr. Hayden treated Ms. Lamplighter.
3) I am willing to concede that some of those who voted “No Award” in the categories that were No Awarded may have done so honestly, after reading and evaluating the works and deciding that they just didn’t measure up. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that every one of the 2500+ who voted that way did so on that basis alone, particularly since several blogs in the run-up were filled with comments from people who openly stated that they were going to vote “No Award” on any category dominated by recommendations from Sad and/or Rabid Puppies. NOT on the basis of the merits of the work. Sure, they have every right to use whatever criteria they wish; they spent their bucks for a membership. But let’s not pretend it wasn’t a concerted effort to shut people out. Please note, as Mr. Torgersen did, that in the process, they managed to slam the door on people who met one or more criteria for diversity, and with a fine disregard for those writers/editors’ politics, too. It was sufficient to deny them simply because Mr. Torgersen and/or Mr. Beale had recommended them.
Lastly, I do have to say that overall, I enjoyed Worldcon immensely, as I was a Worldcon virgin. I met a metric buttload of cool people, collected a bunch of ribbons (it appears that’s a thing), worked a fan table for many hours, sang songs in the elevators, washed dishes in the staff den and generally had a pretty fantastic time. If only there hadn’t been that constant undercurrent, that awareness that by the lights of Established Fandom ™, I was a second-class citizen, below the salt, outside the pale. I was a barbarian and so long as I shut my mouth, tugged my forelock and didn’t express an opinion, my presence would be tolerated.
Brad, why did you nominate Michael Williamson’s “Wisdom From My Internet” without having read it? Williamson says you called him up and told him that you were going to nominate him for a Hugo, and asked what he had that was eligible. So that means you nominated it without having read it.
Also, do you feel any remorse over having blocked Eugie Foster’s last chance at a Hugo nomination, given that she died?
I’m sure your parents are very proud of you for all your accomplishments, and I hope you take a deep emotional satisfaction in what you’ve done.
Steph, you said, “But yeah, I will admit I did in fact vote No Award above many nominees in many categories, as the quality just didn’t match what I had seen in other works from 2014.”
Would you mind giving some examples of works you did vote above No Award on the 2015 list? And did you No Award Butcher, Anderson, Resnick and Weisskopf?
Hi Thomas — I already noted in my previous comment that I didn’t vote in the Editor categories, so it is safe to say that I didn’t vote for Resnick or Weisskopf. Mostly because I am not a writer or anything in the industry at all, and I don’t have time to read a full enough spectrum of work to really understand the influence an editor can have. But that means I had no vote at all in those categories, so nothing below or above No Award. Rightly or wrongly, I decided that I wasn’t educated enough to have a say in those categories.
For Jim Butcher — his nomination inspired me to start the Dresden Files this year, but I haven’t caught up to the latest in the series (started #10 yesterday) and didn’t want to be spoiled by jumping ahead. I feel guilty about it (as I am loving the series overall!), but I am only human. As a result I didn’t put a vote in for No Award for the novel category — I just voted based on the other options remaining in the category. I did read Anderson’s The Dark Between the Stars, but it didn’t earn a vote from me.
So, in the end in the novel category I voted on the three that remained. I will admit it wasn’t perfect, but it was the best that I could do considering I’m busy like most. And again, I didn’t use No Award in that category. I want to emphasize I only used No Award when I had the time to actually review everything.
Frankly, my favorite novel of 2014 didn’t make the nomination cut, but I’m OK with that because I could see where not everyone thought it was as awesome as me (but it did win the Nebula, so yay). I was more frustrated / upset about the shorter form story categories (where I voted No Award above almost all the nominees), because the last few years’ nomination lists had really introduced me to all the great short fiction that is released online. I never loved all the nominees, but this year it was different altogether because I get the sense that most of the people voting the slates didn’t actually read many other short stories / novellas last year (and maybe not even what they nominated) but voted mainly to make a point. I read somewhere around 40 short stories from 2014 while making my list, so it was not comprehensive, but it was something. Viewing a list of all the nominees that was released after the Hugos, I saw a few of my picks in the top ten of each category, so I do wonder if there hadn’t be a slate if they might have been picked.
That all said, I don’t think anybody did wrong by putting forth a slate, especially if it gets more people interested in reading and nominating in the future. It just wasn’t a fun process this year for anyone. Or maybe it was for a few, but I don’t think they represent most on any side.
So… the basic takeaway I’m getting here is that science fiction fans are stupid. We’re too stupid to know what’s good, we’re too stupid to notice that one company has been dominating the awards for better than a decade, we’re too stupid to notice that the guy who has the most nominations and who won for a fluff bit of Star Trek fanfic, also just happens to be the president of the SFWA, we’re too stupid to check to see if the “all white all male slate”is really all white or all male, we’re too stupid to read the news, and we’re too stupid to properly interpret the facts.
Wow, I’m going to line up to give my money to a company that thinks I’m a moron.
“So… the basic takeaway I’m getting here is that science fiction fans are stupid. ”
This says quite a bit about you. Not so much about the field.
A lot of SF readers don’t care about the Hugos. Many of those will continue to not care. However, for those who hear nothing but Puppy rhetoric and get upset, and choose not to avail themselves of further information — there’s nothing I can do about that.
“we’re too stupid to notice that the guy who has the most nominations and who won for a fluff bit of Star Trek fanfic,”
As opposed to the people who didn’t win for various levels of heavy-handed moralizing and dubiously-competent fiction this year?
SF has a history of awarding people who write about *it* — they love it when people look back at the genre itself. Seen in context, “Redshirts” makes a lot more sense.
“Wow, I’m going to line up to give my money to a company that thinks I’m a moron.”
Buy the books you like. Don’t buy the ones you don’t. But don’t pretend that you are somehow protecting the field of SF from its evil hidden overlords by attempting to become its blatant, obvious overlords, and then complaining when the people you’re allegedly protecting don’t want you.
The Hugos had a bad year — lots of organizations and awards and competitions have bad years. The only way it’ll be more than that is if people deliberately set out to sabotage them for a political point — and the people in the past (and threatening to do so in the future) are Puppies, not those who do not so identify.
Steph, thank you for responding so quickly and politely. There aren’t many people being polite on this subject so its appreciated. One comment of yours:
“I get the sense that most of the people voting the slates didn’t actually read many other short stories / novellas last year (and maybe not even what they nominated) but voted mainly to make a point.”
What do you base this on and do you have any personal friends who are … what should I call it, Puppy sympathizers?
I don’t know if any of my sci-fi/fantasy loving friends are puppy sympathizers or not, honestly. So I guess my assumptions on why people nominated what they did is only an assumption. Acknowledging that is why I came to Brad’s blog today, as I had been hearing things mostly from the ‘other’ side. Thank you for also being so polite in your response, as I had definitely wondered if I wanted to open myself up to attacks or not.
Two of the works that I thought were fantastic and that were on the top ten and maybe would have been on the nomination lists if there hadn’t been the slates were Seanan McGuire’s Each to Each and Ruthana Emrys’ Litany of the Earth. None of the nominees in the ‘puppy slate’ this year in that category matched them, to me, so I used the No Award. It was similar in other categories — not everything I nominated made the lists that were recently released, but a few did.
But I know I have weird tastes, so I know not everything I like would be considered Hugo worthy, and that is OK. I am not going to start a campaign or anything to get my picks up on the ballot. I guess I might not understand enough of the history in this issue in particular to understand why others decided to make that leap.
Have you had a chance to look at the full list of what was originally nominated (available here: http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf ) / had you read any of them prior to nominating / voting this year?
I meant to add this in as point 4:
I read what I could prior to voting – basically, read the nominees in a category, then ranked them. I did the shorter/faster stuff first, as I was pretty sure I wasn’t going to get to all of them. I ranked NOTHING below “No Award”. My reason? Even if I wasn’t particularly engaged by it, my view was that if it had enough votes to be nominated, it had something going for it, so ought to be ranked, even if dead last in my opinion.
Someone above – I can’t be bothered to go back and see who – said they ranked things below “No Award” because they didn’t think they compared well with Hugo-winning entries from 2014 and earlier. Except – the Hugos are supposed to be for the best work in that year. Not of all time. So how is comparing this year’s writing with previous years a valid meterstick? Like I said in my previous, people pays their money, they can vote however they like, on whatever basis they like, but it’s pretty sad when people can’t be arsed to use criteria that the Hugos are supposedly based on on. Oh well. I’ll just have to buy another membership for next year, and next time I’ll know I can nominate stuff, too. Unless someone’s busy closing that particular loophole.
Danny on August 24, 2015 at 3:36 pm said:
Brad, why did you nominate Michael Williamson’s “Wisdom From My Internet” without having read it? Williamson says you called him up and told him that you were going to nominate him for a Hugo, and asked what he had that was eligible. So that means you nominated it without having read it.
Maybe I’m missing something here… d’yuh suppose it’s possible Mr. Torgersen called him up, asked what he had that was eligible… then read it before nominating? Or are we allowed to consider only the inference you presented?
Danny on August 24, 2015 at 3:36 pm said:
Also, do you feel any remorse over having blocked Eugie Foster’s last chance at a Hugo nomination, given that she died?
I don’t know, but as he said in response to you posting the exact same question in response to his earlier blog, that’s one of those “Have you quit beating your wife?” questions. It doesn’t matter how he answers; if he accepts the premise of the question, he’s going to be wrong, one way or another. Let me give you an example: “Do you feel any shame at being a concern-troll jackhole?” See how it works?
“Except – the Hugos are supposed to be for the best work in that year. Not of all time. So how is comparing this year’s writing with previous years a valid meterstick?”
I would point out that such a comparison is the entire basis of the Sad Puppies movement.
William — I think you may have misread what I wrote above (as I can’t see what other comments you are addressing).
I did say I ranked things under No Award based on my thoughts on *other works published in 2014*. Not the winners from previous years? I don’t think that me comparing nominees to other works published in 2014 was against the spirit of the Hugos? I also am not sure what would be all that terribly amiss in comparing this year’s nominees to previous years’ winners, but that isn’t what I did this year.
I am going to bow out of the conversation now, though, because your comments are trending essentially towards what I was afraid of when coming here in the first place…
“Three Body Problem, which both Brad and VD praised… VD stating that the only reason that it wasn’t on the RP slate was he hadn’t read it in time… would have LOST to a white woman if the Puppies hadn’t been involved.”
Puppies do not get to claim any sort of high ground here. Not when their actions would have kept it off the ballot entirely, were it not for the last-minute withdrawal of one of their anointed nominees.
For the record, I did read it all (or at least try to; I decided very quickly that Wisdom From My Internets wasn’t worth reading), ranked it all, and put a couple of the puppy nominees – the few that actually seemed award-worthy – above No Award. I did not vote in the Editor categories since I felt I had no basis to rank most of them on, despite the fact that based on the quality of the nominated works published by Castalia House, I would really have liked to somehow vote against VD.
A few telling notes on this fiasco..
1) A very liberal friend of mine (who attended Sasquan) while no friend of the SP movement, has repeatedly said that the Hugos were broken and in dire need of reform and rescue from the SMOF crowd.
2) I was having a chat the Friday before the vote with several friends (all male) when the talk, as its wont, turned risque. We were razzing on each other with naughty jokes. One of my friends declaed that this conversation would not be allowed at Arisia. (For those not in the know Arisia is a Boston con- and a good one). Now this is a person who volunteers at Arisia so he can attend without buying a membership now because of the PC crap, he is considering not bothering in the future. (FWIW, this person is South Asian).
3) After that, I described what happened when the PC crowd took over Readercon, a literary con in the Boston area. One of the first things they did was to eliminate the Kirk Poland Bad Prose competition, usually the highlight of the con. The numbers have plummeted subsequently.
4) Back when Boston was to host Worldcon, I was a regular at NESFA (New England Science Fiction Association). I suggested to the membership that NESFA get a table at Anime Boston to hand out literature for the Worldcon. Those were the days of inevitable ‘greying of fandom panels.’ But at AB the crowd was big, young and enthusiastic. They were the potential future of fandom.
At NESFA, there was hemming and hawing and other reactionary noises. I volunteered to man the table. They said ‘No.’ Finally I just grabbed fliers and left them around AB. This was when AB was still small enough to be held at the Park Plaza (though there was a portion held offsite).
That was 2004, the last time Anime Boston had a smaller attendance than Worldcon. In 2014, AB had over ten times the attendance of Worldcon.
And Pax East blows them both out of the water.
“Except – the Hugos are supposed to be for the best work in that year. Not of all time. So how is comparing this year’s writing with previous years a valid meterstick?”
I can explain this. It’s possible that SF had a terrible year — and that there was nothing deserving of being placed in the category of “best works”. That’s an established precedent from prior “No Awards” — indeed, it’s the reason for the existence of the option.
Wolf,
Your observations match mine, more or less. What I am not sure either the cultural defenders of Trufandom or the cultural purists of Political Correctness understand, is that you can’t claim to be “inclusive” while talking and speaking and acting exclusively. It can’t be done. You can wrap yourself up in a big terrycloth robe with the word TOLERANCE written on the back of it, but if your words and your behavior are not tolerant . . . people notice that shit. Especially teenagers — boys and girls both — who are entirely focused on having fun. The minute your rhetoric starts killing the fun, you lose them. Oh, a few might hang around. But in the main? The kids will split. And rightly so. Youth is fleeting enough. Being able to spontaneously relish the world and everything in it, is a window that should be celebrated — without caveats.
Steph:
“Thank you for also being so polite in your response, as I had definitely wondered if I wanted to open myself up to attacks or not.”
A lot of people on both sides worry about this. People on the puppy side in particular are worried about being blacklisted for their positions and in many cases those fears are very warranted. I know I worry about that just for asking these questions or maintaining ANY position on the issue! Even posting this response has me a little nervous.
“None of the nominees in the ‘puppy slate’ this year in that category matched them, to me, so I used the No Award.”
Do you think this is a harsh standard? If I can keep asking you questions, did you No Award “If you were a dinosaur my love” or “Redshirts”? Some rather strange stories have won Hugos in the past, many of which seem far lower in quality than this year’s nominees. Looking back at previous years’ voting its hard for me to believe that the quality of this year’s books is really as bad as is made out or previous years stories were so stellar as to make them look like rubbish in comparison. Especially the Dinosaur story. Its not a bad story but to say it’s Hugo worthy but this year’s nominees aren’t strains credulity.
I’ve asked you a lot of questions only fair to answer yours.
“Have you had a chance to look at the full list of what was originally nominated (available here: http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf ) / had you read any of them prior to nominating / voting this year?”
Because of my lack of knowledge in contemporary works, I didn’t nominate anyone, and I didn’t end up voting for the Hugos in any category. I’m one of those 4000 missing votes.
I hadn’t read anything on the list before I got the packet. Time being what it was, I read as much as I could. It was a really mixed bag, but I enjoyed at least something in each one. The worst thing I read was Ancillary Sword by Leckie. This was a snippet at the end of a series, so I didn’t feel it was fair to judge based on that. I didn’t have time to pick up a copy of the first book, read enough of that to get the jist, then come back and read the Sword snippet. If I was going to No Award anything it would have been Ancillary Sword but I felt it just wouldn’t be fair. It was this very conundrum that convinced me not to place a vote at all.
The work I enjoyed the most was Big Boys Don’t Cry by Kratman. Maybe its my military background or love of AI, or my fascination with the small human moments that you find in the service, tucked away from civilian eyes. There are nuances I’ve never seen civilian writers get correctly that shone through. Before this I’d never heard of Kratman, but I’ll definitely check him out. As to your two favorites, I’ve never heard of them either, much less read them.
You’re not the only one with unusual reading tastes. My own go back to authors introduced by my father, especially Heinlein, Tanith Lee, Sheri S Tepper, Andre Norton, Marion Zimmer Bradley (if only I’d known then…) and many others. If I had to pick one favorite it would probably be Tanith Lee. I’ve been struggling to find good new authors that satisfied my SFF taste buds. Most have not captured my interest in the same way as the old masters did.
I’ve found myself paying much more attention to video games, manga, comic books, spinoff novels, etc largely because I feel welcomed and encouraged in those communities. The SFF community has been insular and decidedly uninviting, full of cliques. Many of the books I’ve tried have failed to catch my interest. A lot of it has been a thin packaging of story and characters around a brick of message. That gets dull even if you agree with the message as I mostly do. If you don’t, its unbearable. Worse, most of the message is preaching to the choir and does little to nothing to convince anyone that doesn’t already believe. Still I’ve managed to find something I enjoyed in everything I’ve read.
“That was 2004, the last time Anime Boston had a smaller attendance than Worldcon. In 2014, AB had over ten times the attendance of Worldcon. And Pax East blows them both out of the water.”
I find it forever bitterly amusing that people keep comparing a con that is not in the same place for a decade or so to ones that are established in a single location, and/or a completely different kind of convention, as if it had some real relevance.
“Puppies do not get to claim any sort of high ground here. Not when their actions would have kept it off the ballot entirely, were it not for the last-minute withdrawal of one of their anointed nominees.”
That nominee being Kloos. Are you suggesting that Kloos writes garbage, Chris? And according to that iO9 article, Leckie would have won… so no, you don’t get credit for TBP.
Anti-Puppies try to have it ALL ways… Puppy picks are simply Really Bad Fiction. Puppies don’t nominate Diverse authors. But the anti-puppies did everything possible to make known that anyone associating with Puppies, even if just because they got nominated, was going to be punished. Guilt by association, even if it was in his own mind, was why Kloos bailed. Other truly excellent stories were pulled as well. Who even knows what stories or authors Brad contacted who quietly refused? Brad does but he’s a class act and won’t tell.
But… Puppies like BAD books.
Also, even though Puppies liked and nominated “diverse” authors, and many many of them voted for TBP… somehow every single media outlet is publishing statements that Puppies are “all about” making science fiction whiter and more male. How does that work, Chris? Your side really has no shame.
Thomas — I wasn’t a voting member before this year. I did enjoy Swirksy’s short story last year, but I can see why others might not have… I also have read both of Ann Leckie’s books and enjoyed them but can understand why someone who hasn’t read her first might not find the second as interesting.
I am glad you found something you enjoyed from the list of nominations this year. I really wish I had; I would have voted accordingly! I think what has the potential to be great about the Hugo is that sci-fi is so vast, opinions are so varied, and thus for something to make it onto the ballot it has to have a host of people who all agree something is great or interesting about it (although historically that number hasn’t had to be all that big, which is probably the root of the problem). I hope that maybe that can happen next year (rather than a creation of more slates). I do think the only way that will happen is people do read outside of what they’ve read before (and I think the short fiction categories are probably the best place to start there, since there is a much shorter amount of time to invest to read a whole story).
And on the whole ‘insular and uninviting’ aspect — as someone on the other side, I’ve felt it too. I am a 30-something practicing Catholic happily married mom who loves good science and the fantastic in my fiction (trained in genetics); not exactly fitting the mold of either side, I think. I have been told by many people that I should be reading other things. I was going to go to WorldCon this year (I have family in Spokane), but the whole situation with the Hugos discouraged me enough not to. I guess that is why I really came here, to Brad’s blog, to say — there are plenty of people on all sides upset and feeling left out after this year’s ordeal.
So those of you who think that there’s no way that the Puppies can ever do this again, it’s over, you won… imagine this scenario.
SP4… Suggested nominees (however many) are published (after whatever process) without asking (because asking permission to nominate something you like is absurd and the reason for it is obscene). Thus, the Puppy List. Fearing harassment and backlash from the Army of the Tolerant *every* nominee refuses his or her nomination. Any non-puppy who wanted to vote for them is now pissed. Result? The true Puppy List exists with a true accounting of what the organizers felt worthy although not a single one is on the ballot. The Tolerant howl about how Puppies forced excellent authors to lose their chance at a Hugo. Observers go what?
SP5… Suggested nominees (however many) are published (after whatever process) without asking (because absurd and obscene). Thus the Puppy List Fearing harassment from the Army of the Tolerant *some* of the nominees refuse his or her nomination. *Some* anti-puppies vow to vote for their favorite author despite Puppy Cooties. Possibly no Puppy Picks reach the final ballot. If any do, they are No Awarded. People cheer. Observers go what?
SP6… Suggested nominees (however many) are published (after whatever process) without asking (because absurd and obscene). Thus the Puppy List. Fearing harassment from the Army of the Tolerant John Scalzi alone vows to refuse his nomination, because Puppy Cooties. Most authors roll their eyes, announce you can’t control what the Puppies do, and accept whatever votes they get. Anti-Puppies vote for who they want but a few are still mad and vote against nominated works and complain that they’d have liked to vote for them but Puppies made them do it. The Puppy List starts to be seen as a reading list by the peripherally interested public. Hugo MC’s make snide and juvenile attacks during the ceremony about people’s taste in books. Observers go what?
SP7… Shall I go on?
Steph, we’d all like to see more variety. That was sort of the point. Brad tried very hard to pick widely varied stuff, if different from the usual. No one expected Sad Puppies to sweep any of the categories. I swear to you that is true. Those involved in SP4 do not want to control or limit what is on the ballot. Every Sad Puppy who’s said what they voted for on nominees reports voting for some of Brad’s list and for some of their own favorites. More people nominating would be a very good thing. People voting all the same in order to punish others and doing so deliberately to make some sort of point? Not a good thing.
JuliePascal, what you’re missing here is that after this year, any kind of gaming like you have described will look to everyone not already bought into the puppy pile like “Hey! We’re figuring out new ways to game the system to make things worse!”
Which isn’t going to get a lot of sympathy, to put it mildly. Observers go “Oh, it’s another tantrum from the Puppies” and move on with their lives.
If China Mieville gets nominated by the Puppies, I expect people will believe him when he says “Fuck off!” and stays on the ballot, because it will be *risible* to think that the Puppies selected him for any reason *other* than to try and drive him off. And all the claims of “Oh, we’re about Story above Message”, etc., etc., and so forth will be shown up as hollow. Net result: Not a Puppy win.
If the Puppies want to put out a 20-item recommended reading list, or a 1-item We Think This Deserves a Nod, go right ahead. It’s slating, not recommending, that is the problem — and the Rabids, in particular (though the Sads certainly didn’t give much weight to “read, then nominate”), are engaged in slating.
julieapascal:
Do not put words in my mouth.
“Are you suggesting that Kloos writes garbage, Chris?”
No, I am not. I am saying that 3BP would have been ahead of Lines of Departure in the nominations were it not for the Puppy slates, and that had he not withdrawn, the book that the Puppy organizers thought was most worthy of the award would have been omitted from the ballot due to their own actions.
“Puppy picks are simply Really Bad Fiction. Puppies don’t nominate Diverse authors.”
Your words, not mine. I did not vote all the Puppy nominees below No Award, though I did so for the stories, Puppy and Non, which I thought were not award-worthy. I actually ranked one of the winners below all the Puppy works in its category. And frankly, I do not give a flying fuck about “Diverse authors” per se, though I have found that when I read works by someone outside my cultural subgroup, I sometimes find things I hadn’t realized I was missing.
I am not “the anti-puppies”. I am not “the media”. Please stop conflating me with them.
“Your side really has no shame.”
My side? My side is the side that thinks that one small group – any small group – gaming the system to monopolize the nominations is a bad thing. My side is the side that wants to see what you get when you look at the most common entries on a thousand uncoordinated top-five lists. My side is the side that doesn’t want to slog through four mediocre-at-best stories by a single author just because his publisher got a hundred or more people to stuff the ballot box. That’s my side. What’s yours?
Okay, so let’s look at the Puppy picks vs. the non-slate top nominees in the categories where the Puppies provided a full slate and see which ones are more diverse in terms of gender. (We could do race too, and I think we’d see similar results, but that’s harder to research since most ‘About the Author’ sections include an author’s gender but don’t necessarily state their race.)
Hugo ballot from here: http://www.tor.com/2015/04/04/2015-hugo-award-nominees/
The next most nominated items in each categories that were NOT from a slate are listed here: http://www.pretty-terrible.com/2015/08/23/alternate-timeline-hugo-awards/ .
Short story: The slates had four men (Antonelli, Diamond, Rzasa, Wright) and one woman (English). Without the slate, we’d have had one man (Gladstone) and four women (de Bodard, El-Mohtar, Foster, Vernon).
Novelette: The slates had five men (Flynn, Lerner, Rinehart, Vajra, Wright). Without the slate, there would be three men (Crossbill, Heuvelt, Wilson) and two women (Emrys, McGuire).
Novella: The slate had five men (Andrews, Kratman, Wright x3). Without the slate, there would be two men (Liu, Rothfuss) and three women (Kress, Rickert, Swirsky).
Novel: The slates had six total nominees, of which the top five were all men (Anderson, Butcher, Correia, Gannon, and Kloos). (Torgersen was the 6th nominee, and he’s also a man, but he wouldn’t have gotten on the ballot even if the slate had swept the category.) Without the slate, we’d have had three men (Bennett, Liu, Scalzi) and two women (Addison, Leckie).
So in the written fiction categories, the slates had a total of nineteen men and one woman. The actual ballot, with heavy (but not complete) slate influence had seventeen men and three women. With no slates, the ballot would have had nine men and eleven women in those categories. So, no, the slates did not promote gender diversity. They resulted in a ballot that was heavily lopsided towards men, at least in the top part of the ballot. Without the slates, we would have been much, much closer to gender parity.
Next, let’s check the editors. Is it the case that the Puppies promoted a more diverse slate than we’d have otherwise had?
For Editor (short form) the slate had four men (Beale, Resnick, Schmidt, Schubert) and one woman (Brozek). Without the slate, there would have been three men (Adams, Clarke, Strahan) and two women (Datlow, Williams).
For Editor (long form) the slates had two men (Beale, Minz) and three women (Gilbert, Weisskopf, Williams). Without the slates there would also have been two men (Harris, Nielsen Hayden) and three women (Gorinsky, Meacham, Perry).
Overall, the slate editors included six men and four women, and the non-slate top editor picks included five men and five women. So it’s close, but the non-slate is still more diverse than the slate.
And lastly, let’s check Best Related Work, since that also got a No Award. The Puppy slates had five men (Antonelli, Burnside, Roberts, Williamson, Wright) as the authors or editors of these works. Without those slates, there would have been two men (Hines, Sanderson) and three women (Brozek, Sarkeesian, Walton). Again, the slate is less diverse than the non-slate top nominations.
In conclusion: the argument that the Puppies were somehow promoting diversity, at least gender diversity, is not supported. Their picks were skewed in favor of men (heavily skewed for the written fiction categories) much more than the non-slate top nominations.
Sorry Chris. Didn’t mean to misrepresent you.
zoak… at what point at all was anything I described “gaming” anything? It was absolutely nothing more than putting out a list of what the organizer thought was best and letting opponents freely do what they do. The notion that Brad, for example, or next year’s organizers, would exclude some particular literary leftist who wrote a book they thought excellent, is an alternate reality that exists only in the head of anti-puppies who suffer from a terrible case of projection. It’s sort of hard to argue for diversity of thought over superficial diversity and then limit to only people who thought just like you do. The charge has always been that “diversity as long as we approve of the way you think” is false. It’s self-congratulatory, exclusionary, and no deeper than skin or genitalia. Ideological conformity is antithetical to literature in all respects. Now, China Meiville was probably a good choice on your part for an example, because it would probably have to be that extreme an ideologue before certain Puppies said over my dead body. In my scenario I actually assumed that Scalzi had written an excellent book and was nominated on that basis. (I do know that he *can* write an excellent book.)
“In conclusion: the argument that the Puppies were somehow promoting diversity, at least gender diversity, is not supported. Their picks were skewed in favor of men (heavily skewed for the written fiction categories) much more than the non-slate top nominations.”
Puppies have repeatedly said that they don’t care who wrote or edited a book or drew a graphic novel or painted a picture or whatever. They are repeatedly slandered with the charge that their *motivation* is to keep women and minorities out. If you want to look up people’s skirts before you nominate them for a literary award, be my guest. But please do not confuse the fact that other people think that’s sort of creepy with an agenda against diversity.
“The notion that Brad, for example, or next year’s organizers, would exclude some particular literary leftist who wrote a book they thought excellent, is an alternate reality that exists only in the head of anti-puppies who suffer from a terrible case of projection.”
Given that Brad has described many of the winners of previous years’ Hugos as beneficiaries of affirmative action, the odds that he would find a work by those same people suddenly excellent are…slim. It’s not impossible, but highly unlikely.
” Now, China Meiville was probably a good choice on your part for an example, because it would probably have to be that extreme an ideologue before certain Puppies said over my dead body.”
And this is why Puppy slating deserves to fail, and to fall into oblivion. Because at that point, yes, you’re throwing the ideals of the Hugo Award out the window, and going “You! You’re not acceptable because of your ideology.”
And if you combine that with a strategy that dominates the nominations, then you’re just as bad, if not worse, than you claim your enemies to be — because you are open about it (while they may not even have been doing it, or, indeed, exist as a coherent group) and you are blatantly, and obviously, creating a wall in SF.
“Puppies have repeatedly said that they don’t care who wrote or edited a book or drew a graphic novel or painted a picture or whatever.”
They can say this all they like. People the Puppies claim are SJWs have said that no, the works they liked were because they *liked* them, not because they checked off some demographic ticky-boxes, and we’ve seen how willing Puppies are to accept that as truth. The evidence shows that, whatever the Puppies *claim*, the effect of their process is to drastically reduce the presence of non-white males on the ballot.
It’s sort of like saying “Oh, we don’t judge on the basis of X, we just judge on the basis of Y which is heavily correlated with X.”
Oh fer pities sake… can we PLEASE stop pretending that white women are “diverse”. We’re not. OMG. I’ve got a vagina… give me a Hugo! There’s like ONE person darker than a brown paper bag in any recent year’s Hugo group picture and that’s because he might be Asian and is standing in the shadows so you can’t really be sure.
“can we PLEASE stop pretending that white women are “diverse”. We’re not.”
When a group is 95% male, and 5% female, then yes, moving it in the direction of a few more women is increasing diversity.
But by all means, do take it up with our bloghost, who’s said most recent winners were there due to “affirmative action”, as I said before.
” moving it in the direction of a few more women is increasing diversity.”
Thus explaining why you No Awarded Toni Weisskopf, Sheila Gilbert, and Anne Sowards? To “move it in the direction of a few more women”? To “increase diversity”?
Snort.
“Also, do you feel any remorse over having blocked Eugie Foster’s last chance at a Hugo nomination, given that she died?”
Do you feel any remorse over never having given Jim Baen a Hugo Award, given that he died?
How about Ray Bradbury? Lester del Rey?
Jerry Pournelle, Gene Wolfe, and Tim Powers are still with us, but have never won. How about them?
Powers has never even been nominated.
Wolfe and Powers, in particular, give the lie to the “literary merit” argument. Both “literary” as all get-out, but happen to also be conservative Catholics. No rockets for you, boyos!
“Thus explaining why you No Awarded Toni Weisskopf, Sheila Gilbert, and Anne Sowards? To “move it in the direction of a few more women”? To “increase diversity”?
Snort.”
Given that the ballot without Puppy slating would have been far more diverse, yes. I think it just as inappropriate to give an award to a woman just because she’s a woman as I suspect you would, yet that is, in effect, what you’re asking people to do here.
(Oh, and as a side note: I think Powers is an oversight. Then again, so is Iain Banks never having won, despite being the most important writer of space opera in the last 20 years. Fortunately for the genre, there are far too many good writers for the number of Hugos we have to hand out, which is yet another reason to be unsatisfied when people promote substandard work for explicitly political reasons.)
(I also wonder why the Mighty SJWs appear to dominate WSFS, but are ( I suppose ) terribly weak in Fantasy, given, say, Mr. Powers’ success there. And Mr. Wolfe’s.)
‘Given that the ballot without Puppy slating would have been far more diverse, yes.’
Uh-huh. Odd how your ballots are supposedly “diverse” (at least you claim that for a hypothetical ballot that exists only in your head) but your actual winners tend to be almost exclusively white people. Usually old white people. Every year. There was what, one Asian dude last year?
Going back to the actual ballot from last year, it looks pretty white. And, as noted above, the winners were almost exclusively white.
“(I also wonder why the Mighty SJWs appear to dominate WSFS, but are ( I suppose ) terribly weak in Fantasy”
I wonder why you’re suddenly trying to change the subject.
Why don’t you name a few of the scads of oppressed minorities that the Hayden regime has permitted to win Hugos? I mean, there’s got to be dozens of them, right?
Hint: a rich white suburban St. Louis housewife who went to a spendy private college does not actually count as an oppressed minority.
Danny:
“Also, do you feel any remorse over having blocked Eugie Foster’s last chance at a Hugo nomination, given that she died?”
As pointed out by others, that’s a dishonest question. Regardless of his answer, you will twist his words to mislabel him as the bad guy.
Here’s a couple that I hope you will answer:
Do you agree that those making the false accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia against the Sad Puppies should acknowledge that they lied and apologise?
Do you agree that the media outlets making the false claim that Sad Puppies was about promoting white male writers should correct their articles (in some cases completely rewriting them) and apologise?
Do you agree that the person or persons who slandered Larry Correia as a wife-beater should have the courage to publicly confess their actions, acknowlege their lies and apologise?
Do you agree that those currently slandering the Sad Puppies as fascists or those who have previously compared them to neo-nazis and called their works “bad to reprehensible” should acknowledge their lies and apologise?
Yes or no will do.
It’s the typical refrain of the manipulator/abuser: always evade responsibility for causing the damage. Always. “Honey, you know I would never hurt you; you’re just hurting yourself. Now put some makeup on that, before the neighbors see you.”
Oak: Wolfe and Powers are not “loud” conservatives. They’re from the old school, where liberals can be as loud as they want, but conservatives have to stay in the closet. It’s how it’s been in this field for over 20 years. Liberal? Be as loud as you want. Conservative? Better shut up, or you’re in big trouble.
No, we’re suggesting 1,200 and 700 historic, record-high votes for BEST EDITOR should have gotten either Toni or Sheila a trophy. But because True Fandom decided to be a pack of CHORFholes about it, nobody got anything. Seriously, the people who did that — and are now bragging about having done it in the name of “diversity” — have no clue at all how much raw doublethink they’re blasting into the universe. Gigawatts of doublethink. The doublethink will be hitting far-away galaxies for a billion years, and the aliens will yank their audio pieces away from their ears/sensors and yell, “DA FUQ??”
I think Tim just hasn’t spent enough time sucking up to Patrick Nielsen-Hayden. Clearly if you can suck up sufficiently to the emperor of the terrarium, you will get a rocket. Worked for Scalzi. Worked for Kameron Hurley. And many others too.
Aaaaaaaand it’s worth pointing out that nobody has explained how attacking Sad Puppies by using NO AWARD as a bludgeon — even George R. R. Martin said that was a bad idea — is going to win over Michael Rothman’s kids. Or any other youth for that matter. I keep seeing tons of “You’re all bad, you’re all so very, very bad,” but that doesn’t matter when you left a sour taste in the mouths of potentially life-long Fandom entrants right at the key point when they might have felt most included in the event. Instead, you treated them to a display akin to a snobby prom debutant who, upon discovering she and her friends don’t get to pick who is the prom queen, grabs the bouqet and the sash and throws both on the ground, and stomps on those things with vigorous, celebratory fury, then cheers with her buddies while the rest of the school watches in uncomfortable silence; many people walking out.
Uh-huh. Odd how your ballots are supposedly “diverse” (at least you claim that for a hypothetical ballot that exists only in your head) but your actual winners tend to be almost exclusively white people. Usually old white people. Every year. There was what, one Asian dude last year?
This, I think, is the ultimate insult from the Social Justice types, that they can continue to insist on one hand that their goal is to make Science Fiction more inclusive by bring in under-represented groups and at the same time, when alternate political views want to be included as well, insist that those views are not true fans and shouldn’t be included in Science Fiction. “Not enough superficial diversity? Let’s change Science Fiction!” they say, immediately followed by “You want diversity of ideas? That’s not true Science Fiction!” Then they complain when we don’t fall for the trick and call them out on their sheer gall. That they can under-represent the diversity that existed before their campaign and over-represent the superficial diversity that they’ve achieved by suppressing the diversity of ideas, and that they seem to be puppets of a privileged elite using them to maintain their power, are just icing on the cake.
OK. It’s pretty clear given your worldview – “The Hayden Regime” — that evidence isn’t going to get very far with you, but let’s see:
“Uh-huh. Odd how your ballots are supposedly “diverse” (at least you claim that for a hypothetical ballot that exists only in your head) ”
You do realize that the nomination counts have been released, and so a ballot can be constructed with any degree of Puppy participation (or not) one wishes?
We have evidence above regarding gender disparity. And for all your whining, yes, gender diversity is still an issue in SF/F. (I am reminded of the old research that showed many people felt an area was “female-dominated” if there were, IIRC, 25-33% women on it, because that was so much higher a percentage than they were used to in traditionally male-dominated spaces.)
But let’s see: going by the ballot here: http://io9.com/this-is-what-the-2015-hugo-ballot-should-have-been-1725967147
We add the following PoC to the list: Ken Liu, Kai Ashante Wilson, Amal El-Mohtar. We lose who?
“but your actual winners tend to be almost exclusively white people. ”
Here’s a clue: Wanting more of something means you haven’t gotten enough yet. And, unless you’re trying to claim that up until this year the entire Hugo electorate was part of one giant cabal (a particularly risible notion), you cannot give full credit or blame to any particular group.
(I do notice that you seem to be focusing “diversity” entirely on color; I wonder why that could be?)
“I wonder why you’re suddenly trying to change the subject.”
Because I was honestly curious — it seems odd that the Evil Cabal would have so focused on one award. Which, I find evidence that the Evil Cabal doesn’t actually exist.
I am curious about something. A number of people on the anti-Sad Puppies side have said that there’s “only one more year” that they have to put up with us. Is that in reference to the new rules, or is there something else?
Mr. Torgersen: “It’s the typical refrain of the manipulator/abuser: always evade responsibility for causing the damage. Always. “Honey, you know I would never hurt you; you’re just hurting yourself. Now put some makeup on that, before the neighbors see you.”
Pot. Kettle. Black. I take it you will now accuse the Rabid Puppies of being abusers, because that is *exactly* the rhetoric they used in terms of “We didn’t destroy the Hugos, you did, and you’re making us do it next year, and the year after, etc…”
(This is, of course, presuming that “No Award” is actually doing that much damage, a highly debatable point.)
“No, we’re suggesting 1,200 and 700 historic, record-high votes for BEST EDITOR should have gotten either Toni or Sheila a trophy. ”
So, in other words, because your recruiting efforts weren’t as good as someone else’s, they deserve a trophy? So, if next year, more people nominate, does everyone who gets more nominations than a historical precedent get on the ballot?
Again, pot, kettle, black.
(And pot, statistically illiterate. Did they get a historic percentage of those votes? Obviously not, and it’s *percentage* that matters in an election.)
“Clearly if you can suck up sufficiently to the emperor of the terrarium, you will get a rocket. Worked for Scalzi. Worked for Kameron Hurley.”
Why, thank you for naming names for people you feel got illegitimate Hugos. Of course, sucking up to you got people Hugo nominations, but I guess, again, you only object when it’s someone else allegedly receiving the benefit.
“Aaaaaaaand it’s worth pointing out that nobody has explained how attacking Sad Puppies by using NO AWARD as a bludgeon… is going to win over Michael Rothman’s kids. ”
That’s OK. No one explained how hijacking an award with a tactic long-disdained, in order to support an (apparently) narrow fragment of the community is going to win over Michael Rothman’s kids, either. But you did it.
(Or did you want the rest of the Hugo voting population to put some makeup on before Mr. Rothman’s kids saw them?)
I am curious about something. A number of people on the anti-Sad Puppies side have said that there’s “only one more year” that they have to put up with us. Is that in reference to the new rules, or is there something else?
I suspect that is a reference to EPH, yes; which will drastically reduce the ability of anyone, be they puppies sad or rabid, or some notional SJW cabal, to take over the entire ballot.
I’m still waiting for Larry to really take a good look at the numbers. It looks to me like a lot more people voted in the Best Editor categories than usual. I think that for many people, this was an anti-Rabid Puppies vote rather than an anti-Sad Puppies vote. Best guess is that they had no idea how to rank the other four people, but they voted No Award in the category as a vote against Vox Day, who was nominated in both categories.
Well, whatever you need to tell yourself to remain convinced this is someone else’s fault, I guess.
Okay, so I agree that the vast majority of the people who voted no award for Best Editor did so not because they actually think Toni, Sheila and the rest were bad editors, but to stick it to the puppies. But here is my question: Of the 1900 people who voted for Toni and Sheila, how many of them are capable of telling a good editor from a bad one? How many of them, if asked, could tell you why Toni or Sheila is a good editor? And how many do you think voted for them because they were on the slates?
My apologies if I mucked up the formatting, I’m hoping you use HTML here.
We have evidence above regarding gender disparity. And for all your whining, yes, gender diversity is still an issue in SF/F. (I am reminded of the old research that showed many people felt an area was “female-dominated” if there were, IIRC, 25-33% women on it, because that was so much higher a percentage than they were used to in traditionally male-dominated spaces.)
In other words, “Diversity is important, except for diversity of opinion!” In fact, it’s so important to get more women writers involved in one of the few literary genres that is still male-heavy that you’re willing to condone the use of sexist slanders against female authors that disagree with you. Getting more non-cisgendered writers recognized for their achievements is so important you’re willing to condone driving one of them out of the awards because the other side thought they were worth recognizing (the side that supposedly hates non-cisgendered writers).
You’re trying to both appeal to the need to bring more diversity into Science Fiction and appeal to Fandom to stop us Sad Puppy unterfans from corrupting the sanctity of your Uberfan awards. That doesn’t work.
Brad, I think if I had a chance to talk with Michael Rothman’s kids, I would first sit us all down and watch Wil Wheaton’s speech to a newborn “Why it’s awesome being a nerd,” which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_BtmV4JRSc
“Find the things that you love and love them the most that you can.”
Then, I’d tell them that there will be times in fandom and in life that others don’t love the same exact thing that they love and that is OK. We all have had our own experiences, I am sure, of being told how weird it is to love the geeky things we do. Growing up geek was an incredibly lonely experience for me (as I imagine it was for many many others). We can’t control what other people do, and we can’t let adult conflicts such as the Hugo awards dictate how we love the things we love. I think that is a very important lesson for all of us to learn at some point.
It is disingenuous to continually just say that the other side needs to make it better, be better, for the next generation. We ALL need to be better. I have sort of entered late into trying to understand the conflict, but I see issues in how things have been handled on ALL sides.
My daughter (who is only 2, so a little ways off from fandom – although you could probably call her a Curious George / Sophie the First fangirl) will probably not like the same things as Rothman’s kids. She probably will not geek out about the same things as me, either. But I hope I can raise her in a way that she knows she can geek out about almost anything and find someone else who loves it too… and also probably find others that DON’T love it too. Fandom isn’t this homogeneous crowd that will celebrate the same things that I love, and that diversity of opinions and viewpoints isn’t a bad thing.
If it were me, I wouldn’t have brought my kids to the Hugo awards as an introduction to fandom. I’d find out what exactly they most want to see / do at WorldCon outside of the awards ceremony that was only ever going to be inviting controversy and make sure we did that instead — be it meet an author, attend a talk on something awesome and weird, go to ballroom dancing lessons, check out the cool art on display and maybe bid on something, find a geeky pride shirt, learn to shoot a bow and arrow from the local LARP group, etc. I didn’t attend WorldCon this year, but those are the type of events that I’ve seen and participated in at my local cons and loved. Awards ceremonies != fandom.
But here is my question: Of the 1900 people who voted for Toni and Sheila, how many of them are capable of telling a good editor from a bad one? How many of them, if asked, could tell you why Toni or Sheila is a good editor? And how many do you think voted for them because they were on the slates?
How many fans have ever been able to distinguish a good editor from a bad editor? How many awards has PNH won because his name was recognizable? That award has always been a popularity contest, which, because it’s a fan award, it will always be.
“You do realize that the nomination counts have been released, and so a ballot can be constructed with any degree of Puppy participation (or not) one wishes?”
You do realize that the very presence of the Puppies ALTERED THE FIELD?
You can’t just remove the puppy votes and assume that’s what the ballot would have been without them. Looking at just first order effects, the very presence of the Puppies almost certainly mobilized some degree of support for those who were seen as the most anti-Puppy.
“Here’s a clue: Wanting more of something means you haven’t gotten enough yet. ”
Here’s a clue for you: giving a zillion Hugos and millions of dollars to a middle-aged white dude like John Scalzi doesn’t actually promote “diversity”. Yet that’s what your team has produced. Funny that. Sort of like the way that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” always seems to wind up producing an awful lot of dead peasants.
I’m sure your next Five Year Plan will bring about Utopia, though. Yep. Guaranteed.
“I do notice that you seem to be focusing “diversity” entirely on color; I wonder why that could be?”
Because white suburban St. Louis housewives who attended private universities with $47k/year tuition aren’t actually an “oppressed class”. No matter how much you like to pretend that it’s so, or how much she claims that members of the Evullll Patriarchy are “punching her in the face” on a daily basis.
“it seems odd that the Evil Cabal would have so focused on one award”
The award where nominations have historically been controlled by blocs of as few as 40 votes? No, actually, it doesn’t seem odd at all that they would have done that. You just don’t like the fact that someone else figured it out.
“I suspect that is a reference to EPH, yes; which will drastically reduce the ability of anyone, be they puppies sad or rabid, or some notional SJW cabal, to take over the entire ballot.”
Oh, are you in for a big surprise if that actually gets ratified next year.
Here’s a hint: you’re not going to like it.
As someone who was unaffiliated with any sides or whatever the situation appeared as the following:
We got two groups who are proclaiming their intention to hijack/manipulate the Hugo-Awards because apparently there was some “liberal conspiracy” which manipulated the Awards to only feature liberal stuff, for which however i couldn´t see any indication to this looking at past years nominees and winners, as there certainly has never been a lack or underrepresentation of “traditional SF/F” among the nominees/winners.
This leaves me with the mentioned two groups who are openly intending to abuse and corrupt the maybe too idealistic voting system of the Hugos and thereby risking the future of the whole award just because they believe in some shady and weired conspiracy theories.
Furthermore one of these groups (obviously the Rabbid Puppies) are lead by a noisy Neonazi who has the impertinence of not only trying to hijack the award but even doing so for his own gains by placing himself and people affiliated with “Castalia House”, where he is lead editor, among the nominees.
There have been a lot of discussions about how to react to this situation, whether to reject the Puppies by using the “No-Award” or not, and my thoughts which lead me to favoring the “No-Award”-approach were quite simple:
No matter the outcome, the Puppies would feel confirmed anyway. If they had not been rejected with “No-Award”-votes we would be reading now “JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED”-blogposts instead of stories about sad children and watching Vox Day raging and uttering silly phrases.
Therefore the logical conclusion was to reject the attempted manipulation by voting for “No-Award” in every Puppie-dominated category, a conclusion which obviously a lot of people have drawn too.
Furthermore i saw it as of utmost importance to prevent Vox Day himself of achieving anything which lead me to favoring the “No-Award”-option for the two editor-categories, in which he cheated himself.
It may be completely true that there were people on the editor nominees list who would have deserved the award but I considered the risk of this guy actually managing to cheat himself to the top to be the by far worst possible outcome of the Awards and as it seems a lot of people again had the same thought.
As conclusion i recommend Michael Rothman to explain to his children on the topic of the Hugos why cheating and manipulating is bad and despisable, even or especially when it is done by legally abusing an idealistic system.
“As someone who was unaffiliated with any sides or whatever ”
Oh, give it a rest.
Ah yes, you use the word “hijack” and accuse us of believing in conspiracies (we never said that). But you expect us to take you seriously.
@Civilis “In other words, “Diversity is important, except for diversity of opinion!””
And do tell how having 15% of voters, going off a list generated by 2-5 people, represents “diversity of opinion”?
The rest of your discussion is the same “Hey! Your disapproving of our methods hurts specific examples of people you claim to support!” that we’ve been hearing from the beginning. Which remains a rhetorical trick.
And if it’s “sanctity” to say “Hey, read, and nominate what you liked!” instead of “here’s my list of things I think you should nominate to stick it to the {SJWs/Puppies/Commies/Christofascists}*”, then yes, I want to fight for the sanctity of the awards.
*I don’t know of any slates for 2 of those, but I include them because I’d vote against them too. I don’t want the Hugos to turn into a hostile 2-party system, we have one more than enough of those in my country right now.
Then, I’d tell them that there will be times in fandom and in life that others don’t love the same exact thing that they love and that is OK. We all have had our own experiences, I am sure, of being told how weird it is to love the geeky things we do. Growing up geek was an incredibly lonely experience for me (as I imagine it was for many many others). We can’t control what other people do, and we can’t let adult conflicts such as the Hugo awards dictate how we love the things we love. I think that is a very important lesson for all of us to learn at some point.
I think your response was fair and even, and I can’t find anything to argue with in your sentiments as expressed.
As someone who has found themselves increasingly pulled to one side of this debate because I believe there are objective differences between the sides, however, I feel I need to make my case. It’s really easy to say “don’t be a dick”, it’s a lot harder to put it into practice. My view of Mr. Wheaton is colored because I have seen substantial evidence he does not practice what he preaches.
The key difference is how we address these people that like different things. Amazon lists 29,000 Science Fiction works when I search for “Science Fiction” with the qualification published in 2014. This is probably high, but we’ll take it as a starting point. If we had an objective measure of how good a work is (which we don’t), there are still 29 works in the top 0.1% of Science Fiction. 5 will make it through the Hugo nomination process. If everyone nominates five of the top 29 there is roughly a one in five chance that one of your books will make it through the nomination process. If you’re among those whose favorites don’t make the cut, how do you handle it? Is a book that you may not have liked still good enough to be “Best Science Fiction of the Year”? Or is any book that doesn’t meet your personal list automatically disqualified? Keep in mind, given our hypothetical almost even distribution, that’s 80% of the voters.
Furthermore, one side of this debate is saying that not liking an author’s race or gender or politics is enough to disqualify a work, and in fact, not liking the politics of people that like the work is enough to disqualify a work without reading it.
The rest of your discussion is the same “Hey! Your disapproving of our methods hurts specific examples of people you claim to support!” that we’ve been hearing from the beginning. Which remains a rhetorical trick.
We expect you to stand by your principles, because that’s all your argument is based on. You claim the moral high ground by appealing to ‘diversity’, showing that your actions are knowingly harmful to the values you claim to represent should be enough to knock that claim down. Without the moral high ground, you have nothing.
Furthermore, your argument is based on the fallacious assumption that the Sad Puppies voters voted in lockstep with Brad’s recommendations, as has been repeatedly pointed out to be false. They were recommendations, nothing more, nothing less. The fact that people felt many of Brad’s recommendations were good reading says a lot about Brad’s reliability.
“You do realize that the very presence of the Puppies ALTERED THE FIELD?”
Indeed. It probably tweaked the numbers a little bit. It’s not a perfect “if there were no puppies”, but it’s as close as we’re going to get.
Now I’ll ask — are you as skeptical of the information that led you to claim that there was a Hayden regime as you’re being skeptical of these numbers? Or is it only because they lead to conclusions you don’t like?
As for the rest of that particular rant, it only makes sense if you accept as a given the existence of a Hayden Regime — and given your evidentiary standards, I find little reason to believe there is such a one.
““it seems odd that the Evil Cabal would have so focused on one award”
The award where nominations have historically been controlled by blocs of as few as 40 votes? No, actually, it doesn’t seem odd at all that they would have done that. You just don’t like the fact that someone else figured it out.”
As opposed to the award where a majority of the nominees (and the winner) are chosen by a panel of *judges*? I mean, come on; if they could so easily corrupt one, why not do both? Or is the Evil Hayden Regime *just* powerful enough to corrupt one and *just* lazy enough to not bother with the other? I am impressed with the specificity of this non-existent cabal.
“Oh, are you in for a big surprise if that actually gets ratified next year.
Here’s a hint: you’re not going to like it.”
OK, then, let me ask you: What’s your objection to it? After all, unless your goal is to drive out all the fans who don’t like what you like from the award process, what’s the problem with EPH’s stated goals?
And if that *is* your goal, then you’re just exposing the hollowness of Puppy (of whichever flavor you are) rhetoric.
“accuse us of believing in conspiracies (we never said that)”
Well, that depends on who you mean by “We”. Dr. Locketopus clearly does. Brad Torgersen clearly does. Vox Day clearly does.
So which we are you referring to?
“Furthermore, one side of this debate is saying that not liking an author’s race or gender or politics is enough to disqualify a work, and in fact, not liking the politics of people that like the work is enough to disqualify a work without reading it.”
Citation, please.
Because if you’re referring to the No Awards this year, that’s about methodology of how they got to the ballot, and you know it.
Heck, I can’t recall if it was this thread or the other one I’m involved in on this site where someone acknowledged that she didn’t think the Puppies would nominate China Mieville no matter what — because of his politics.
A Marxist take on Sad Puppies:
http://www.shabogangraffiti.com/2015/08/the-award-of-cruelty.html
” You claim the moral high ground by appealing to ‘diversity’, showing that your actions are knowingly harmful to the values you claim to represent should be enough to knock that claim down.”
And if that were so, it would be.
But as has been pointed out: Making Sarah Palin a vice-presidential nominee does not mean that people who believe in diversity needed to vote Republican or undercut their principles. That only applies if you think that the principle in question was “Diversity before everything else” — which it isn’t, and has never been.
“Furthermore, your argument is based on the fallacious assumption that the Sad Puppies voters voted in lockstep with Brad’s recommendations, as has been repeatedly pointed out to be false. They were recommendations, nothing more, nothing less. The fact that people felt many of Brad’s recommendations were good reading says a lot about Brad’s reliability.”
Enough people voted in line with Brad’s “recommendations” when in company with the people actively encouraged to vote in lockstep with Vox Day’s to run large amounts of the ballot. The evidence that the Sad Puppies were block-voting is much stronger than the evidence that any so-called SJW cabal was engaged in the same behavior before, which is part of the Puppie’s excuse for why their tactic was OK.
Indeed, I have yet to see a *single person* explain to me why “Wisdom From My Internet” was worthy of a nomination — all we know is that Brad called up a friend, asked them what they had that was eligible, and he put it on. (citation available upon request)
If that’s trustworthy or useful for the mission of the Hugos, or, indeed, for any missions other than “Get Brad’s Friends Hugo Nominations” or “Piss off people we don’t like”, I can’t imagine how.
And yet *that* is what you are defending, when you defend the Sad Puppies. We won’t even go into the Rabids.
“It probably tweaked the numbers a little bit. It’s not a perfect “if there were no puppies”, but it’s as close as we’re going to get.”
Backpedal a little harder. It’s quite amusing.
Given the months of screeching rage, it seems rather more likely that it tweaked the numbers a lot. The only reason you trotted out that inane hypothetical is because it supports your equally inane viewpoint. You know it and we know it.
” are you as skeptical of the information that led you to claim that there was a Hayden regime”
Redshirts. Case closed.
I mean, that wasn’t even the best Star Trek fanfic of the year, much less the best SFF novel of the year.
“OK, then, let me ask you: What’s your objection to it?”
Honesty. Dislike for seeing people changing the rules (the rules that they themselves set up, mind you) just because they don’t like the outcome.
“I have yet to see a *single person* explain to me why “Wisdom From My Internet” was worthy of a nomination”
I have yet to see a single person explain to me why Scalzi’s collection of Bush-bashing blog posts was worthy of a nomination, and yet it was not only nominated, it won.
Because if you’re referring to the No Awards this year, that’s about methodology of how they got to the ballot, and you know it.
Citation please. I’m calling your bluff. You keep stating that we all voted in lock step. Prove it. Find Brad telling us that. You can’t, because we didn’t. He didn’t want us to.
The nominee forced out, by the way, is Annie Bellet for “Goodnight Stars”. That’s not “No Award”, that’s pressured out, because you guys didn’t like that we liked her work.
“someone acknowledged that she didn’t think the Puppies would nominate China Mieville no matter what — because of his politics.”
Vox Day himself is on record referring to Mieville as “one of the best writers of our generation”, and put him on his personal short list for “Greatest Living SF Writer” (the other two being Neal Stephenson and John C. Wright). Is that Puppy enough for you?
If that’s trustworthy or useful for the mission of the Hugos, or, indeed, for any missions other than “Get Brad’s Friends Hugo Nominations” or “Piss off people we don’t like”, I can’t imagine how.
Seriously, when past years have been “Get the Hayden’s and their Friends Hugos” and “Give Scalzi Hugos”, why would we even need to cover it up? GRRM and Harlan Ellison have been open about backroom slate dealmaking going on for a while. But back then it was the Uberfans favorites sweeping the nominations, and not some outsiders getting nominations, and not superficially diverse Progressive outsiders (those are encouraged) but icky wrongthink outsiders.
I have yet to see a single person explain to me why Scalzi’s collection of Bush-bashing blog posts was worthy of a nomination, and yet it was not only nominated, it won.
If you doubt there’s political bias, “If you were a Dinosaur, My Love” both got a Hugo nomination and a Nebula without being anything more than a political screed disguised in a non-science fiction story.
Given the months of screeching rage, it seems rather more likely that it tweaked the numbers a lot. The only reason you trotted out that inane hypothetical is because it supports your equally inane viewpoint. You know it and we know it.
Oh, but sschwartzoak has absolute proof that no one could possibly have voted for any of those books unless Brad put a gun to their puppy’s head and told them to do so. Nobody actually likes any of those works, not even Brad, he’s under the evil mind-control magic that Vox Day actually uses to control his minions. Therefore, the number of people that voted for the Sad Puppy recommendations is obviously wrong, and should be zero, if not negative.
Seriously, if nothing else I would stand up against people like them just because they give no credit to anyone else for having an opinion of their own. As Steph said very eloquently above “I’d tell them that there will be times in fandom and in life that others don’t love the same exact thing that they love and that is OK. We all have had our own experiences, I am sure, of being told how weird it is to love the geeky things we do. Growing up geek was an incredibly lonely experience for me (as I imagine it was for many many others). We can’t control what other people do, and we can’t let adult conflicts such as the Hugo awards dictate how we love the things we love. I think that is a very important lesson for all of us to learn at some point.“
“Given the months of screeching rage, it seems rather more likely that it tweaked the numbers a lot. The only reason you trotted out that inane hypothetical is because it supports your equally inane viewpoint. You know it and we know it. ”
Given that the months of screeching rage came *after* nominations had closed, I doubt they affected the nominations count much at all.
“Redshirts. Case closed. ”
So, a book you don’t think was good won a Hugo, and that is proof that there’s a cabal running the Hugos? See my comments above regarding your evidentiary standards.
“Honesty. Dislike for seeing people changing the rules (the rules that they themselves set up, mind you) just because they don’t like the outcome.”
Someone exploited a loophole; is that to remain open, then, in perpetuity? Tell me, please — do you believe that changing the rules of sports to prohibit forms of doping is “dishonest”?
“I have yet to see a single person explain to me why Scalzi’s collection of Bush-bashing blog posts was worthy of a nomination, and yet it was not only nominated, it won.”
I’ve not read it, so I can’t defend it. I *can* say that Scalzi’s blog contains a great deal of SF-relevant content. I also notice that you’re not defending it either, save in that way of saying “Look! Something worse in my opinion made it, so it must be OK!”
“Vox Day himself is on record referring to Mieville as “one of the best writers of our generation”, and put him on his personal short list for “Greatest Living SF Writer” (the other two being Neal Stephenson and John C. Wright). Is that Puppy enough for you?”
Well, aside from being an insult being on a list like that with John C. Wright — more power to him. So here we have a case of a Rabid being saner than a Sad.
I notice that over, and over, and over again, you seem to think that one example that might fit a pattern you believe in is enough proof to believe in that pattern. You might want to consider the effects that’ll have upon your rhetoric and your life.
Vox Day himself is on record referring to Mieville as “one of the best writers of our generation”, and put him on his personal short list for “Greatest Living SF Writer” (the other two being Neal Stephenson and John C. Wright). Is that Puppy enough for you?
Vox Day’s enthusiastic endorsement of Three Body Problem shows that the head Rabid Puppy himself considered his slate recommendations. Either that, or he could give Havelock Vetinari, David Xanatos and Izaya Orihara lessons in outmaneuvering your opponents.
“Seriously, when past years have been “Get the Hayden’s and their Friends Hugos” and “Give Scalzi Hugos”, why would we even need to cover it up?”
Evidence, please, other than “We didn’t like it, and can’t understand why other people did, so it can’t have been honest!”
I’ve given you my evidence to show that SP3 was, in part, a nepotism-fest — and I think it’s fair to claim that a *dishonest* slate deserves the No Award treatment even more than one that was honestly trying to make an aesthetic point — so, show me yours beyond “We didn’t like it!”
“If you doubt there’s political bias, “If you were a Dinosaur, My Love” both got a Hugo nomination and a Nebula without being anything more than a political screed disguised in a non-science fiction story.”
Because many people thought it was beautifully written, spoke to something real, and used SFnal tropes to tell its story.
And if you have decided that that story is inherently a “political screed”, then I suggest that you’ll never be happy with the Hugos, because all you’re going to see in a lot of fiction (fiction you don’t agree with politically) is that kind of screed.
Someone exploited a loophole; is that to remain open, then, in perpetuity? Tell me, please — do you believe that changing the rules of sports to prohibit forms of doping is “dishonest”?
If there was merely one “loophole” you’d be right. There are multiple things that could be qualified as loopholes in the Hugo awards. When you have people wanting to close only the “loophole” used by one team (the Lions) after years of not giving a crap about loophole abuse by and other unsportsmanlike behavior by the other team (the Tigers), you begin to suspect that the people talking about closing the “loophole” are Tigers fans, and not people that care about the honesty of the game.
I’ve not read it, so I can’t defend it. I *can* say that Scalzi’s blog contains a great deal of SF-relevant content. I also notice that you’re not defending it either, save in that way of saying “Look! Something worse in my opinion made it, so it must be OK!”
Williamson and Scalzi are both Science Fiction authors, and both also are known for writing about politics. I note that you’re unable to believe Williamson’s work could be worthy of a Hugo, while willing to accept that Scalzi’s could be worthy of a Hugo unread.
“If there was merely one “loophole” you’d be right. There are multiple things that could be qualified as loopholes in the Hugo awards. When you have people wanting to close only the “loophole” used by one team (the Lions) after years of not giving a crap about loophole abuse by and other unsportsmanlike behavior by the other team (the Tigers), you begin to suspect that the people talking about closing the “loophole” are Tigers fans, and not people that care about the honesty of the game.”
OK. What other loopholes are being used? If it’s slate nominating (as people have been claiming), this will greatly reduce it, no matter who’s doing it. If it’s something else, do tell, and make a proposal to change it. Otherwise, all you’re doing is waving a hypothetical about and claiming “No, we can’t change a thing we know is an issue, because there might be other things too!”
“Williamson and Scalzi are both Science Fiction authors, and both also are known for writing about politics. I note that you’re unable to believe Williamson’s work could be worthy of a Hugo, while willing to accept that Scalzi’s could be worthy of a Hugo unread.”
I read a decent chunk of “WfmI”, and found it severely lacking in SFnal content (as well as quality). So I am not speaking from a position of no information here, as you seem to think. Furthermore, I’ve read Scalzi’s blog for quite some time, so have information about what he writes about and why.
In general, I’m willing to extend the benefit of the doubt; this is a specific case where I have more information to hand.
“Given that the months of screeching rage came *after* nominations had closed”
Liar.
“So, a book you don’t think was good won a Hugo, and that is proof that there’s a cabal running the Hugos?”
Yes, you’re quite right. Redshirts was Dune, The Lord of the Rings, and The Baroque Cycle, all in one package. Only my biased opinion could claim otherwise.
“do you believe that changing the rules of sports to prohibit forms of doping is dishonest”
Doping is a new, unforeseen thing. Voting in accordance with the rules is not. The thing that’s dishonest here is you.
” I also notice that you’re not defending it either, save in that way of saying “Look! Something worse in my opinion made it, so it must be OK!””
Yes, again you’re quite right. Only my biased opinion could possibly think that such tours-de-force of the essayist’s art as “I Refuse To Believe that 9 out of 10 Republicans are Complete Tools”, “The Election and Kerry’s Shoes”, “Al Kisses Tipper: a Nation Swoons”, and “Bush Snorted Cocaine” have little, if any connection with science fiction.
“Well, aside from being an insult being on a list like that with John C. Wright — more power to him.”
It’s funny how the very same people who claim Wright is a hack now were swooning over him until it became clear that he holds unpopular opinions (with which I largely don’t agree, as it happens). Odd that such a terrible, terrible writer would have been given a contract with Tor in the first place, innit?
“I notice that over, and over, and over again, you seem to think that one example”
I notice that over and over again you dishonestly claim that multiple examples are the same thing as “one example”.
I’ve given you my evidence to show that SP3 was, in part, a nepotism-fest — and I think it’s fair to claim that a *dishonest* slate deserves the No Award treatment even more than one that was honestly trying to make an aesthetic point — so, show me yours beyond “We didn’t like it!”
So you have no evidence, got it. (Here’s my evidence, based on 30 seconds of searching: http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/04/25/broken-hugo-fisking-d-jason-fleming/ scroll down a couple of pages to the Harlan Ellison reference)
Because many people thought it was beautifully written, spoke to something real, and used SFnal tropes to tell its story.
Seriously, you’re getting more trollish as you go along. The fact that you can defend a Nebula on the basis that the work was ‘kind-of Sci Fi-ish’ tells a lot. A lot of people think John C. Wright writes beautiful prose, speaks to something real, and actually tells Science Fiction. If the Hugo is merely “who liked which book more”, then be prepared for a lot more No Awards until some book gets popular enough to have a supermajority of supporters.
And if you have decided that that story is inherently a “political screed”, then I suggest that you’ll never be happy with the Hugos, because all you’re going to see in a lot of fiction (fiction you don’t agree with politically) is that kind of screed.
Then it’s down to a majority of who can mobilize more fans, enough to get a supermajority behind their nominees. May the biggest and most organized fandom win. That very likely won’t be your fandom, as organizing people means using icky recommendation lists, and you won’t do that publicly for a couple of years (at which point many of those currently decrying the Sad Puppy recommendations because they’re almost slate-like will all suddenly be in favor of straight-ticket anti-Puppy slate voting). I don’t think we’ll win either, not for a long time. But sometimes you have to settle for “nobody wins”. Personally, I don’t think it should be this way, I think it should be about the Science Fiction, but I think “nobody wins” and standing up to the politicization of Science Fiction does more for Science Fiction than letting the Progressives continue to have their way destroying a genre I love, and those are the only options I have at this point.
You’ve shown that you personally consider Science-Fiction-ish politically progressive works to be more qualified than non-progressive science fiction, you personally consider only superficial diversity to be worthy of inclusion, you’ve conclusively demonstrated you’re not an unbiased observer in your treatment of Williamson vs Scalzi, and you’ve been conclusively unable to demonstrate Sad Puppies was anything other than a recommendation list.
I read a decent chunk of “WfmI”, and found it severely lacking in SFnal content (as well as quality). So I am not speaking from a position of no information here, as you seem to think. Furthermore, I’ve read Scalzi’s blog for quite some time, so have information about what he writes about and why.
I will say one thing in defense of sschwartzoak, he may be incredibly biased, but he actually tried to read one of the works by those evil villainous conservatives. That’s a lot more than I can say for most on his side.
““Given that the months of screeching rage came *after* nominations had closed”
Liar.”
Do please show me months of screeching rage before the nominations — especially since there was only a month between slate and nomination deadline.
“Yes, you’re quite right. Redshirts was Dune, The Lord of the Rings, and The Baroque Cycle, all in one package. Only my biased opinion could claim otherwise.”
OK. This is where I look at you and go “What are you smoking?” Because I said no such thing, and you’re not actually addressing my point.
(Furthermore, going from “One bad thing (even granted it was a bad thing) happened” to “therefore there is a cabal doing it!” is classic paranoid thinking.)
“Doping is a new, unforeseen thing. Voting in accordance with the rules is not. The thing that’s dishonest here is you.”
Well, if anyone voted on, say, the RP slates without reading everything they nominated, they weren’t “voting in accordance with the rules”. It’s *exactly* parallel to “Hey, they found a way to game the system we hadn’t thought of, but we think we should change it” via EPO, or blood-doping, etc.
“It’s funny how the very same people who claim Wright is a hack now were swooning over him until it became clear that he holds unpopular opinions (with which I largely don’t agree, as it happens). Odd that such a terrible, terrible writer would have been given a contract with Tor in the first place, innit?”
You must be mistaking me for someone else. Also, writers change — some writers wrote great books when they were young, then went downhill, or vice versa. Wright had promise — which he then squandered. Happens not infrequently, and happened before he went off the deep end politically.
“I notice that over and over again you dishonestly claim that multiple examples are the same thing as “one example”.”
You’re the one who claims that 1 book winning a Hugo is sufficient evidence that there is a “Hayden* Regime”
*P.S. — it’s Nielsen Hayden.
“So you have no evidence, got it. (Here’s my evidence, based on 30 seconds of searching: http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/04/25/broken-hugo-fisking-d-jason-fleming/ scroll down a couple of pages to the Harlan Ellison reference)”
Um. Hate to break it to you, but “evidence of the existence of slate voting 20 years ago” is not “evidence of ‘Get the Hayden’s and their Friends Hugos” and “Give Scalzi Hugos'”
See the difference?
“Seriously, you’re getting more trollish as you go along. The fact that you can defend a Nebula on the basis that the work was ‘kind-of Sci Fi-ish’ tells a lot. A lot of people think John C. Wright writes beautiful prose, speaks to something real, and actually tells Science Fiction. If the Hugo is merely “who liked which book more”, then be prepared for a lot more No Awards until some book gets popular enough to have a supermajority of supporters.”
Oh, for crying out loud — I try and explain why I liked something (note: I did not vote for it) and that’s being “trollish”?
If people want to nominate John C. Wright because they think he writes beautiful prose, speaks to something real, and writes SF, they’re welcome to do so, provided they read him and don’t make it a bloc nomination. (A lot of his work is, IMHO, thinly- or utterly un-veiled religious allegory, but YMMV.)
“f the Hugo is merely “who liked which book more””
At one level, yes; because any time you ask a group of people to pick the Best Book of the Year, absent any objective criteria, that’s what you’re going to get — and IRV generates that supermajority. 🙂
At another level, it’s supposed to be asking people which book they think is better, not which one they liked more. I mean, I enjoy some books that I consider popcorn — more than I do some books that I would gladly agree are “better” in both a literary and SFnal sense — but that doesn’t mean I’m voting for them for Hugos.
Then it’s down to a majority of who can mobilize more fans, enough to get a supermajority behind their nominees. May the biggest and most organized fandom win.
Only if you insist on viewing it that way. I can’t stop you from doing so, but I can be saddened that you do.
I think it should be about the Science Fiction, but I think “nobody wins” and standing up to the politicization of Science Fiction does more for Science Fiction than letting the Progressives continue to have their way destroying a genre I love, and those are the only options I have at this point.
While, in a perfect mirror, I think it should be about SF too; and standing up to the use of SF in a larger culture war by conservatives damages SF more, and those are the only options you’re giving me.
You’ve shown that you personally consider Science-Fiction-ish politically progressive works to be more qualified than non-progressive science fiction
And I would almost always vote for a Tim Powers novel above, say, a John Scalzi one, because I think Powers is a better writer. Ditto for Gene Wolfe. Sorry to break your narrative.
you personally consider only superficial diversity to be worthy of inclusion
See above. Your “diversity of viewpoint” only seems to apply to making sure that conservative voices get to dominate the discussion, rather than ensuring any kind of real diversity of viewpoint.
you’ve conclusively demonstrated you’re not an unbiased observer in your treatment of Williamson vs Scalzi
Because I read one and found it unacceptable, and say I haven’t read another and therefore cannot defend it? That’s some pretty weak evidence to draw your conclusion from.
and you’ve been conclusively unable to demonstrate Sad Puppies was anything other than a recommendation list.
A recommendation list that just *happened* to have 5 nominees in most categories, that encouraged readers not to read it but to nominate it — I refer to above, regarding “plausible deniability.”
As with Locketopus, your standards of evidence seem drastically different depending on whether or not you already agree with the position.
“Do please show me months of screeching rage before the nominations — especially since there was only a month between slate and nomination deadline.”
This was Sad Puppies 3. Which implies that there were Sad Puppies 1 and 2. Which implies that there were at least 2 previous years. Which, given that there are 12 months in a year, means that there were, at a minimum, 24 months. “Months” is plural, meaning more than one. 24 is more than 1. I could go back and cite examples of screeching rage since Larry first announced Sad Puppies 1, but why bother? You’d just ignore them.
Now go away.
“You’re the one who claims that 1 book winning a Hugo is sufficient evidence that there is a “Hayden* Regime””
I claimed nothing of the sort. I also mentioned Scalzi’s collection of essays, so that’s at least two in this thread alone. Do try to keep your lies consistent, at least. I could name many others, but you’d dismiss each one as “just one example”, so why bother? You’ve shown that you have no intent of engaging the issue on an honest level.
“Well, if anyone voted on, say, the RP slates without reading everything they nominated”
You’re implying that everyone who voted “No Award” read everything? You don’t even believe that bullshit yourself. Don’t expect anyone else to believe it.
” Wright had promise — which he then squandered.”
Uh-huh. “Squandered” by failing to adhere to the party line.
“*P.S. — it’s Nielsen Hayden.”
Someone who calls me a Nazi and a racist doesn’t get to pick what I call him. He’s lucky that I’m using something as polite as “Hayden”.
In re: screeching rage. Do try and be clearer, then.
“I claimed nothing of the sort.”
“” are you as skeptical of the information that led you to claim that there was a Hayden regime”
Redshirts. Case closed. ”
“Case closed” generally means, well, case closed. If that wasn’t enough evidence for you, you shouldn’t have said “case closed”.
“You’re implying that everyone who voted “No Award” read everything? You don’t even believe that bullshit yourself. Don’t expect anyone else to believe it.”
What an impressive bit of leaping from A to 243.
You claimed that people had nominated within the rules. I said that if any of the Rabid Puppies had not read what they nominated, they had *not* nominated within the rules. I was speaking entirely of nominations.
How you get from that to the implication that “everyone who voted “No Award” read everything”, I can only guess
“Uh-huh. “Squandered” by failing to adhere to the party line.”
No — squandered by writing ever-worse stuff. The signs of it are present even in his early novels, and he’s just gone further down that path. (All this, of course, is my own opinion, others may vary.)
“Someone who calls me a Nazi and a racist doesn’t get to pick what I call him. He’s lucky that I’m using something as polite as “Hayden”.”
Very well, then.
And given that this particular thread of discussion has wandered into grammatical nitpickery and jumps into the aether of assumption, feel free to keep calling him what you wish, and looking thereby the fool.
“you’re not actually addressing my point.”
Yes, I am. You’re dismissing Redshirts as “just one example” and “my opinion” (without, I note, actually defending its Hugo-worthiness). When I added another Scalzi shite-fest, you did the same, again without actually explaining why “I Refuse To Believe that 9 out of 10 Republicans are Complete Tools”, “The Election and Kerry’s Shoes”, “Al Kisses Tipper: a Nation Swoons”, and “Bush Snorted Cocaine” qualified the work as SF-related. You didn’t even try the “SFnal trope” dodge. Come on, I’m sure you can find an emanation, or a penumbra, or something if you really put your mind to it.
As for Wright’s Christian subtext, I presume you’re also willing to discard C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, L’Engle, Katherine Kurtz…
As for Hayden, I know perfectly well that he wants to be called “Nielsen Hayden”, and was referring to him as “Hayden” as a deliberate slight. Since that was apparently too subtle for you, I’ll refer to him as “Lying Stalinist Shitbag” henceforth. Happy now?
The root question is, “what is wrong with Science Fiction literature that the best works as judged by ”Uberfans” (the Hugos) aren’t what people are buying?” Either something is wrong with the market for Science Fiction literature, or the Uberfan Hugo awards are no longer a good barometer of what the best Science Fiction literature is. I know which way I’m betting: the market is more correct than the Uberfans, and the Uberfans are increasingly separate in terms of taste from fandom as a whole. The Sad Puppies campaign is an attempt to bring the market winners and the fans of said works into the awards,
At a fundamental level, you see the Sad Puppies campaign as a hell-spawned abomination, I see it as the only way to save a once valuable Science Fiction award from the over-political garbage that keeps winning. Neither of us can prove we’re right. I’m not going to change your mind, all I can do is present my case to the undecided viewers. Repeating the same thing over and over just is a waste of time, but I’ll keep doing it because it needs to be done, because you keep insisting on ‘facts’ that aren’t so (I won’t call them lies, as others here have done, but it is evidence for you being trollish).
For examples:
See above. Your “diversity of viewpoint” only seems to apply to making sure that conservative voices get to dominate the discussion, rather than ensuring any kind of real diversity of viewpoint. is false because people in Sad Puppies recommended and nominated works that we enjoyed from all across the ideological spectrum. Even if it were true, the argument is invalid, as ‘conservative voices dominating the discussion’ is no worse than the status quo of ‘progressive voices dominating the discussion’. Back to my original argument, you made a big point above about how important the gender diversity in Science Fiction is to you. The fact that that is the argument you stand on (rather than, say ‘gender diversity in Romance authors’ or ‘gender diversity in fiction in general’), says that you believe that diversity brings something to Science Fiction, something which is to be encouraged. Why, then, don’t you care about the diversity of ideas? (rhetorical question) I can make a case that ‘diversity of ideas’ is what Science Fiction should be about, rather than playing minority quota bingo.
Um. Hate to break it to you, but “evidence of the existence of slate voting 20 years ago” is not “evidence of ‘Get the Hayden’s and their Friends Hugos” and “Give Scalzi Hugos’” It’s evidence that people didn’t care about the “loophole” until the wrong team won.
If people want to nominate John C. Wright because they think he writes beautiful prose, speaks to something real, and writes SF, they’re welcome to do so, provided they read him and don’t make it a bloc nomination. (A lot of his work is, IMHO, thinly- or utterly un-veiled religious allegory, but YMMV.) Ok, but CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien are thinly veiled or un-veiled religious allegory and still unquestionably Fantasy and are generally regarded as masterpieces. Religious allegory can be Fantasy or Science Fiction (I’ve been using Science Fiction as a shorthand for a larger genre that includes Fantasy). “If you were a Dinosaur my love” was not Science Fiction or Fantasy, and being ‘kinda-Sci-Fi ish’ (specifically, it used SFnal tropes (which ones?)) should not qualify a work for the highest Science Fiction award; the fact that it won indicates something is wrong, either there were no other works remotely qualified or the awards committee awarded on something other than the Science Fiction / Fantasy qualities of the work.
Because I read one and found it unacceptable, and say I haven’t read another and therefore cannot defend it? That’s some pretty weak evidence to draw your conclusion from. You admit you’re a frequent reader of Scalzi. That you might agree more with Scalzi or give Scalzi some leeway you wouldn’t give Williamson is so obvious it shouldn’t require proof. Likewise, you can assume I’d tend to be biased towards Williamson and I won’t require you to prove it (in fact, I could care less about Williamson, I’m biased against Scalzi for his obvious idiocies, even though I’ve enjoyed some of his fiction). But you saying (in effect) ‘even though I’m a frequent Scalzi reader, I’m not biased towards Scalzi’ doesn’t pass the laugh track, which is what you’re doing when you dismiss Williamson’s work as wrongly nominated because it’s obviously political while not dismissing Scalzi’s work for the exact same reason.
Well, if anyone voted on, say, the RP slates without reading everything they nominated, they weren’t “voting in accordance with the rules”. It’s *exactly* parallel to “Hey, they found a way to game the system we hadn’t thought of, but we think we should change it” via EPO, or blood-doping, etc. [Sarcasm] And, of course, the way to fix this is by actually and admittedly going out and breaking the rules by voting on the Hugo awards without reading the nominated works! Thereby shutting down the vast majority of people that voted for those works that truely think the Sad Puppy recommended works are the best qualified nominations that they had read. Because they’re obviously guilty until proven innocent, even if it’s just guilty of thoughtcrime.
““you’re not actually addressing my point.” — note not an actual quote.
“Yes, I am. You’re dismissing Redshirts as “just one example” and “my opinion” (without, I note, actually defending its Hugo-worthiness).”
You’re the one who claimed that somehow I was praising Redshirts to the skies — my comment was in reference to your “Dune, Lord of the Rings,{etc}” nonsense.
You appear to think that when you respond to something, every word you say is to be somehow applied to everything else, in one giant miasma of response. I tend to operate on the model (as I think most people do) that when you say something below a comment, you mean that to be your response to that comment, rather than merely one fragment of the giant Urpost in your head.
I was dismissing your point that one (and at that time the only) piece of evidence you offered (and claimed was sufficient: hence, “case closed”) for a “Hayden regime” was one book winning one Hugo; pitiful standards of evidence for a conspiracy.
“As for Wright’s Christian subtext, I presume you’re also willing to discard C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, L’Engle, Katherine Kurtz…”
No. All of the people you’ve mentioned are vastly superior and, more importantly, vastly *subtler* writers than Wright is.
And if you wish to descend into name-calling, after starting with deliberately misusing someone’s given name, that’s your option; it adequately demonstrates your class and manners.
No — squandered by writing ever-worse stuff. The signs of it are present even in his early novels, and he’s just gone further down that path. (All this, of course, is my own opinion, others may vary.)
Hey! You win another cookie for finally including a ‘YMMV’! Up to that point, you’d sounded like it was obvious to anyone that Wright’s works were getting worse, whereas nobody rational person could ever think Scalzi had ever written anything dreary and hard to read.
I meant to ask, as an aside, when you say “At another level, it’s supposed to be asking people which book they think is better, not which one they liked more. I mean, I enjoy some books that I consider popcorn — more than I do some books that I would gladly agree are “better” in both a literary and SFnal sense — but that doesn’t mean I’m voting for them for Hugos.“, why do differentiate between books which are ‘better’ and which books you ‘liked more’? This seems to be one of the major differences between our ways of thinking, I can’t imagine saying “I liked this book better, but this other one is a better book.”
You’re the one who claimed that somehow I was praising Redshirts to the skies — my comment was in reference to your “Dune, Lord of the Rings,{etc}” nonsense.
If it’s not a great book, why did it win a Hugo? Can you find me anyone that thought it was a great book (besides perhaps Scalzi himself)? It didn’t make my top books of the year, but I admit that I enjoyed reading it, because I like metafiction and I’m used to fanfic.
(I lost a response to your long post, which I will reconstruct, but in the meantime)
“I meant to ask, as an aside, when you say “At another level, it’s supposed to be asking people which book they think is better, not which one they liked more. I mean, I enjoy some books that I consider popcorn — more than I do some books that I would gladly agree are “better” in both a literary and SFnal sense — but that doesn’t mean I’m voting for them for Hugos.“, why do differentiate between books which are ‘better’ and which books you ‘liked more’? This seems to be one of the major differences between our ways of thinking, I can’t imagine saying “I liked this book better, but this other one is a better book.””
Indeed, and it ties into a comment I was starting to make earlier, in which you ask: “The root question is, “what is wrong with Science Fiction literature that the best works as judged by ”Uberfans” (the Hugos) aren’t what people are buying?” Either something is wrong with the market for Science Fiction literature, or the Uberfan Hugo awards are no longer a good barometer of what the best Science Fiction literature is.”
To which my answer is “the best” and “the most popular” aren’t equivalent. I can throw myself into, say, a great popcorn movie like “Iron Man” and really enjoy it, and watch “Doubt”, and go “Yes, artistically, aesthetically, and in terms of theme and importance, “Doubt” was a better movie — better acted, better directed, etc. — but man, I laughed my ass off at the scenes of Tony Stark in the lab.”
And find one a more worthy award-winning movie than the other.
Of Chip Delany’s books, most of which I adore, I know that Dhalgren, and Trouble on Triton, and the Tales of Neveryon are the great achievements. but when I want to pick up a book to read of his because I want to enjoy myself, I pick up Nova. I like Nova better, even as I stand in awe of the technical accomplishment of Dhalgren.
Let me try a different metaphor: I can watch any judged sport (figure skating, BMX jumping, etc.) and go “OK, that bit there looked really cool — I think that was my favorite routine” while acknowledging “But that competitor over there did one that was half again as hard, and he didn’t make the mistakes that the one that looked really cool did — he did a better job.” It’s trickier for fiction, but it’s something I can do.
“If it’s not a great book, why did it win a Hugo? Can you find me anyone that thought it was a great book (besides perhaps Scalzi himself)? It didn’t make my top books of the year, but I admit that I enjoyed reading it, because I like metafiction and I’m used to fanfic.”
Well, first of all, 2 of the 3 books Locketopus listed were “all-time-classics”, and if you have to be in that realm to win a Hugo, well, we’re going to be waiting a while.
But you enjoyed reading it, it’s metafiction about SF (which SF fans have long shown a weakness for), and it paid tribute to two very popular phenomena in the field — which makes it seem a perfectly targeted Hugo missile.
I haven’t read its competitors (I’m a bit behind) — but it seems like the sort of “good-but-not-all-time-great-but-really-popular” book that’s a decent Hugo bet. (It did, also, sell well.)
And thank you, Civilis — that comment about ” This seems to be one of the major differences between our ways of thinking, I can’t imagine saying “I liked this book better, but this other one is a better book.”” has really got me thinking.
I am glad we’re able, in the midst of our other disagreements, to have this part of the discussion.
“Nepotism-fest”
OHHHHHH… ho ho ho ho ho ho ho!
You have amused me so much with this!
Dear man, the Hugos have always been an incestuous bag of friendlies-feeling-up-their-friendlies! This is how Chicks Dig Time Lords beats the Resnick-Malzberg book and the Heinlein bio! This is how Seannan McGuire gets 5 Hugo nominations in one year! This is how Mike “Pravda 770” Glyer gets the better part of 50 Hugo nominations! This is why authors who barely sell enough to justify their contracts, can show up year after year after year after year on the ballot!
Yes, do please, tell us about the badness of the “Nepotism-fest” when you have time.
Meanwhile, there is Coca-Cola all over my screen.
But you enjoyed reading it, it’s metafiction about SF (which SF fans have long shown a weakness for), and it paid tribute to two very popular phenomena in the field — which makes it seem a perfectly targeted Hugo missile.
directly goes against
To which my answer is “the best” and “the most popular” aren’t equivalent. I can throw myself into, say, a great popcorn movie like “Iron Man” and really enjoy it, and watch “Doubt”, and go “Yes, artistically, aesthetically, and in terms of theme and importance, “Doubt” was a better movie — better acted, better directed, etc. — but man, I laughed my ass off at the scenes of Tony Stark in the lab.”
Your first statement, to me, sounds like ‘Redshirts won, not because it was the best, but because it had the right combination of factors to be popular with the Hugo crowd’. Based on that, I see three partially overlapping circles in our Venn diagram: ‘the best Science Fiction literature’, ‘what the WorldCon fandom likes’ and ‘what self-described Science Fiction fans like’. Your contention is that what the WorldCon fandom likes’ more closely overlaps ‘the best Science Fiction literature’ (they’re not identical, because Redshirts appeals to popularity rather than being the Best). That’s a perfectly logical argument.
What’s interesting is that the recent Long Form Dramatic Presentation awards tend to be very close to what is ‘Popular’ as told by other movie ratings for the US Domestic market. There’s no controversy there, because the difference is small. The winner might not be the most popular Science Fiction movie in terms of box office draw or best Rotten Tomato critics rating aggregation, but it’s going to be one of the top. Guardians of the Galaxy wasn’t No Awarded. (We’ve discussed the limited number of foreign films in the Hugos on this blog; the fact that the Oscars pay more attention to Miyazaki’s work than the Hugos has been pointed out). For the Dramatic Presentation award, popularity (domestic US popularity, at least) and the best seem to be very closely equivalent.
One of the points behind the Sad Puppies campaign is that the Hugo award that rewards the most popular Science Fiction literature of World Con attendees does little for Science Fiction literature fans that aren’t World Con attendees, regardless of the bias behind the award, the bias being the difference in perception of what is good Science Fiction between WorldCon voters and fandom as a whole, which is not just political. Inside joke metafiction like Redshirts written to appeal to the WorldCon crowd isn’t going to capture the general fandom; much of the success Redshirts has had has been based on Scalzi’s name recognition and the remaining little bit of clout the Hugo has. It’s not that metafiction can’t be made appealing to a popular audience; Galaxy Quest is an awesome movie and a much better Star Trek homage. An award that says to the larger fandom “this is good science fiction literature that has an appeal to all fandom” will benefit Science Fiction in general more than “this is good Science Fiction that appeals to the narrow WorldCon fandom.”
But here is my question: Of the 1900 people who voted for Toni and Sheila, how many of them are capable of telling a good editor from a bad one?
Well, let me think…I buy a LOT of Baen stories and enjoy them. Does that make me “qualified” enough to decide Toni is worthy of a Best Editor, Long Form Hugo Award? Oh wait, I was supposed to “make a statement” and NO AWARD her so I could be with all the cool kids, right?
Too bad, I was one of those 1200 votes for Toni Weisskopf. I’d rather be with the minority that chooses to award talent rather than be part of the mob that decided to lockstep vote to punish people out of pure spite.
Who knows, maybe our “minority” will become a “majority” if you folks’ winning personality keeps bubbling to the surface so please do continue doing what you’ve been doing.
[first paragraph deleted, as I discussed it before ;)]
“At a fundamental level, you see the Sad Puppies campaign as a hell-spawned abomination, I see it as the only way to save a once valuable Science Fiction award from the over-political garbage that keeps winning.”
Well, actually, I see the Sad Puppies as a campaign started by a bad loser, continued for marketing and culture-war purposes. But I won’t argue.
I will ask about “over-political garbage”, though, because usually, when that gets asked, the answer is one or two books (often years apart) – can you say what you mean by that?
Because, for example, if you mean Ancillary Justice, then definitely we shan’t agree.
See above. Your “diversity of viewpoint” only seems to apply to making sure that conservative voices get to dominate the discussion, rather than ensuring any kind of real diversity of viewpoint. is false because people in Sad Puppies recommended and nominated works that we enjoyed from all across the ideological spectrum.
Well, a) take that up then with the Rabids, who guaranteed that the slant was hugely Right, and b) if you are talking about the discussion thread, rather than the resulting “recommendation list/slate” – then I haven’t seen it, and I can’t comment, though I think (from what I’ve heard of the analysis) that our bloghost here did said thread an injustice in the slate-formation process.
Even if it were true, the argument is invalid, as ‘conservative voices dominating the discussion’ is no worse than the status quo of ‘progressive voices dominating the discussion’.
Here’s an irony.
Because if there’s a secret majority of conservative readers, then they shouldn’t need to ‘dominate the discussion’ with respect to the Hugos. Same for progressives.
Back to my original argument, you made a big point above about how important the gender diversity in Science Fiction is to you. The fact that that is the argument you stand on (rather than, say ‘gender diversity in Romance authors’ or ‘gender diversity in fiction in general’), says that you believe that diversity brings something to Science Fiction, something which is to be encouraged.
I have two answers to this. Yes, I do think it does, because more than any other genre, SF/F is about the possible-but-not-here, the might-have-been, the could-be; the place where we most need a diversity of possible futures, possible pasts, and different viewpoints.
And I do care about gender diversity in fiction in general, but SF/F is the world I most inhabit.
Why, then, don’t you care about the diversity of ideas? (rhetorical question) I can make a case that ‘diversity of ideas’ is what Science Fiction should be about, rather than playing minority quota bingo.
I do.
But I think that a) promoting SF like Nutty Nuggets (the way it used to be!) is antithetical to diversity of ideas, and b) I think that one of the best ways to get a diversity of ideas is to get a diversity of viewpoints, a diversity of backgrounds, a diversity of ways people experience the world – and to do that requires a diversity of people. No matter how much I research it, my experience of the world as a subordinated race will never be the same as Chip Delany’s. No matter how much I research it, my experience of colonialism will not be the same as someone who grew up in a colonized state within their lifetime – and so on, and so forth.
When 80+% (and I believe I am being generous) of the writing nominees on the various Puppy slates came from white men, you’re not going to get that kind of diversity.
Diversity of ideas is served by John C. Wright getting one nomination. Not 6.
It’s evidence that people didn’t care about the “loophole” until the wrong team won.
Except that first you need to demonstrate that “Team Give Scalzi a Hugo” or “Team Get the Haydens and their Friends Hugos” even existed. Let’s do the work with EPH, and see what would have happened had it been used in previous years. If there was a lot of block voting, then that should find it.
Ok, but CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien are thinly veiled or un-veiled religious allegory and still unquestionably Fantasy and are generally regarded as masterpieces.
Well, some people don’t regard CS Lewis that way, but YMMV. 🙂
Also, do you really wish to fix the definitions of the genre 50 years ago, and admit no change?
Religious allegory can be Fantasy or Science Fiction (I’ve been using Science Fiction as a shorthand for a larger genre that includes Fantasy). “If you were a Dinosaur my love” was not Science Fiction or Fantasy, and being ‘kinda-Sci-Fi ish’ (specifically, it used SFnal tropes (which ones?))
I don’t know – imagining transformation from one species to another has been around for centuries, along with interactions between humans and other species. Indeed, one could argue that the “marrying a non-human” has rather longer traditions in the field than Christian religious allegory. 🙂
This is how genres grow, and how genres change. I am not against this concept.
the fact that it won indicates something is wrong, either there were no other works remotely qualified or the awards committee awarded on something other than the Science Fiction / Fantasy qualities of the work.
Or that they decided that it was so good it transcended the traditional limits. I can’t speak for the Nebula judges.
[Sarcasm] And, of course, the way to fix this is by actually and admittedly going out and breaking the rules by voting on the Hugo awards without reading the nominated works!
Tell me; what other option did they have? Would you be complaining if they’d all read it (or enough to feel they understood) and then No Awarded it? (As, for example, I did.)
Because if not, then you’re leaving people who felt cheated by the loophole no redress at all.
Thereby shutting down the vast majority of people that voted for those works that truely think the Sad Puppy recommended works are the best qualified nominations that they had read. Because they’re obviously guilty until proven innocent, even if it’s just guilty of thoughtcrime.
I don’t know where you get “vast majority”. The highest figure I’ve seen was around 2000 no-slate-at-all voters. Which would leave 1500 “No Awards” from those who read. Which means that of the categories that weren’t awarded for writing only (and this is a maybe, since, as Locktepus points out, we can’t be sure) Kary English would have won an award without the bloc no-awarding. None of the Novellas came close.
So, unless you’re arguing that “No Award” is a fundamentally dishonest response, even when you’ve read the works, no “vast majority” of people were shut out.
“And if you wish to descend into name-calling, after starting with deliberately misusing someone’s given name, that’s your option; it adequately demonstrates your class and manners.”
Making fun of Hayden’s naming conceits: bad manners.
Calling people Nazis and racists (who are demonstrably nothing of the sort): not.
Gotcha, hoss.
The nominee forced out, by the way, is Annie Bellet for “Goodnight Stars”. That’s not “No Award”, that’s pressured out, because you guys didn’t like that we liked her work.
Which was going to be my #1 vote for that category.
Pity.
“An award that says to the larger fandom “this is good science fiction literature that has an appeal to all fandom” will benefit Science Fiction in general more than “this is good Science Fiction that appeals to the narrow WorldCon fandom.””
You’re welcome to start one. However, turning an existing award into what you think it *should* be is both likely to produce (as it did) a lot of unneeded anger and upset, and b) might well not work.
Here’s the thing: any voted award is going to have the problem you discuss — that it will represent a particular group of voters. People have come to respect the Hugos because they felt people who were going to WorldCons, or paying enough attention to them, were paying attention to the field as a whole, and had a vested interest in judging well.
The problem with any kind of slate, or “campaign within the award”, is that it only makes that pool of people *smaller* — this year, for example, the Hugo for Short Story would have been “what a few thousand voters thought was the best out of what a small cabal of a couple hundred people chose for internal political (fan-political or culture-war-political) reasons, largely guided by what an even smaller cabal of people think.)”
And if the Worldcon way to run an award sucks, that sucks *a lot more*, which is the point those of us who are anti-slate have been saying all along.
So, if you want to come up with a different away to give an award, go for it! Otherwise, all we’re left with is sales figures, and that’s not, I think, what any of us really want.
“Making fun of Hayden’s naming conceits: bad manners.
Calling people Nazis and racists (who are demonstrably nothing of the sort): not.
Gotcha, hoss.”
You’re free to indicate where I’ve done so. I don’t think Brad’s a racist, for example. Or a Nazi. John C. Wright, for example, is not an Nazi.
So, do try and remember to paint with a *slightly* narrower brush.
“You’re free to indicate where I’ve done so. I don’t think Brad’s a racist, for example.”
Unless your name is “Hayden”, hoss, I wasn’t talking about you.
Is Lying Stalinist Shitbag held to a lower standard of “bad manners” than I am?
You’re free to indicate where I’ve done so. I don’t think Brad’s a racist, for example. Or a Nazi. John C. Wright, for example, is not an Nazi.
There’s no excuse at this point for being unaware of the smears thrown at the Sad Puppies.
Mr. Wright is also not a racist by any reasonable definition that does not also apply to a good chunk of the anti-Puppy forces. If we have to bring James May in to provide documentation, we’ll be here for weeks cataloging examples; he’s made documenting them his hobby.
The thing is, because so many people on the Sad Puppy side have been unjustly smeared with the racist / sexist / extreme right wing / neo-nazi / homophobic brush, it’s impossible to prove any such accusation against the Sad Puppy side; there’s so much garbage out there any evidence will get lost. It’s like trying to prove a suspect was at the crime scene by using hair samples after someone that was sure the suspect was guilty and wanted to make sure he got caught themselves got caught scattering around the contents of the suspects vacuum cleaner at the crime scene. (The fact that Vox Day enjoys walking a very fine line with very precise language doesn’t help. If you want to throw insults at him, be our guest, but he’s not here. He can more than defend himself at his place.)
Well, Doctor, I can’t speak to PNH’s reasons for calling Brad what he did, or to his evidence. You’ll have to take that up with him. Since I haven’t seen his “demonstrations” behind what he did.
For that amtter, I have only your word that he called Brad those things, rather than this being some kind of ultra-conflation from the Irene Gallo tweet. So go ahead, say what you will. You will, anyway.
“There’s no excuse at this point for being unaware of the smears thrown at the Sad Puppies.”
Oh, I’ve seen plenty of them. I’ve objected to some of them in the past. Others, not so much. For example, I remember the massive amounts of conflation around the Irene Gallo facebook comment, where everyone chose to clutch pearls and believe they’d been called the worst name in the tweet, while “extreme right-winger” certainly covered most of the prominent Puppies quite comfortably.
“Mr. Wright is also not a racist by any reasonable definition that does not also apply to a good chunk of the anti-Puppy forces.”
I’m not going down that rabbit-hole. Before he went completely off the deep end (the last few weeks) he and I went around and around and around many times; you will not convince me that he is not racist hiding behind his excuses of What The World Should Be.
“, it’s impossible to prove any such accusation against the Sad Puppy side; there’s so much garbage out there any evidence will get lost.”
I don’t think any of those terms apply to the “side” of the Sad Puppies. Some individual Puppies are definitely those things, convicted out of their own mouths, repeatedly.
And don’t worry — I don’t need to insult Vox Day. He has made quite enough of his own bed.
Now — let me turn that around. Do you think that all the accusations being tossed at the “CHORFs”, “SJWS”, etc. have become impossible to prove? Since it’s not like the rhetoric has been going only one way in this case, at all.
You’re welcome to start one. However, turning an existing award into what you think it *should* be is both likely to produce (as it did) a lot of unneeded anger and upset, and b) might well not work.
What the Hugo award is for is up to WorldCon fandom, with the caveat that the precise definition of WorldCon fandom being “anyone that puts up the money to nominate and vote this year”. Over time, the fandom has changed the definition as the fandom has changed. If the Sad Puppies fandom becomes the dominant block, however, the definition will change. You are right that the people on the losing end of the change won’t like it. But neither side has any right to control what the award should be for outside the democratic process. (The Sad Puppies did conclusively demonstrate that the True Worldcon Fandom in 2015 would rather have the award represent the insignificant WorldCon Fandom rather than open it to the larger fandom as a whole, and was willing to cut the baby in half to make sure no one got it.)
“For that amtter, I have only your word that he called Brad those things”
Ah, yes. Pretending to be ignorant is one of your standard tactics, isn’t it?
I don’t recall saying that he specifically called Brad those things, but if I cared to I could dig up dozens, nay, hundreds of incidents of such behavior on his part (and the part of his equally repugnant wife) over the last 20 or 30 years.
Each one would no doubt be dismissed by you as “just one incident”.
You are a dishonest weasel, and I don’t have to prove anything to you. Lying Stalinist Shitbag’s record is what it is.
” If the Sad Puppies fandom becomes the dominant block, however, the definition will change.”
This is true. There is little evidence that this is happening, but we shall see.
” (The Sad Puppies did conclusively demonstrate that the True Worldcon Fandom in 2015 would rather have the award represent the insignificant WorldCon Fandom rather than open it to the larger fandom as a whole, and was willing to cut the baby in half to make sure no one got it.)”
You keep saying this, and no, it didn’t. It proved that WorldCon members didn’t feel slates were a legitimate tactic, and voted to defeat those who used slates. That’s not the same thing, especially when the “larger fandom as a whole” turned out to be ~500 people, or at least that number who showed up and voted.
As I’ve said before, and will say again; something like “Big Boys Don’t Cry” winning the Hugo would have done far more damage to its reputation than “no awarding” a category that a small number of people had gamed.
Remember — every time you talk about “the larger fandom” you’re talking about ~200 people who nominated heavily influenced by a list ~5 people generated. That’s not “larger fandom”; that’s a different, and, it turns out, smaller clique.
“Ah, yes. Pretending to be ignorant is one of your standard tactics, isn’t it?”
I prefer to admit when I don’t know things than pretend I do. It would be useful for people talking about grand conspiracies they have little evidence for to do the same.
“I don’t recall saying that he specifically called Brad those things, but if I cared to I could dig up dozens, nay, hundreds of incidents of such behavior on his part (and the part of his equally repugnant wife) over the last 20 or 30 years. ”
As I said before, he probably had his reasons, and what you consider “demonstrably true” has so far been utterly unimpressive in the “demonstration” category.
“You are a dishonest weasel, and I don’t have to prove anything to you. Lying Stalinist Shitbag’s record is what it is.”
Then feel free, as I said, to go on and do what you will. You will anyway.
I’ve tried to be scrupulously honest with you — to the point of correcting myself when wrong. You’re the one who’s grabbed sentences out of context, stated that your own words don’t mean what they appeared to mean, etc., etc., and so forth.
So, go ahead, have fun. Use what names you like. Wave your conspiracy theories around like they’re something useful. Have a nice day.
Oh, I’ve seen plenty of them. I’ve objected to some of them in the past. Others, not so much. For example, I remember the massive amounts of conflation around the Irene Gallo facebook comment, where everyone chose to clutch pearls and believe they’d been called the worst name in the tweet, while “extreme right-winger” certainly covered most of the prominent Puppies quite comfortably.
Seriously? Only if 40%+ of the American electorate are “extreme right-wingers”. Calling anyone a neo-Nazi in this day in age should raise massive red flags unless they have a prison tattoo of a Swastika on their face. Vox Day probably qualifies as ‘Extreme Right Wing’ for some reasonable definitions thereof, but John C. Wright doesn’t sound much different than my parish priest (though I haven’t sparred with him online, as you have. Why didn’t you mention that before? It’s certainly relevant to any assessment you make of Mr. Wright.) I find that very few people in the bubble have any genuine idea of what right wing people believe and how many of them believe what, so I can’t fault you too much. Still, I work in the private sector; saying what Irene said about the clients of the business I work for would have me on my ass in a heartbeat, even if it was absolutely 100% provably true.
Now — let me turn that around. Do you think that all the accusations being tossed at the “CHORFs”, “SJWS”, etc. have become impossible to prove? Since it’s not like the rhetoric has been going only one way in this case, at all.
Most of the accusations I’ve seen have been leveled at the anti-GamerGate SJWs, although there is some overlap, and most of those have been admitted by the Social Justice types in question, or at least denied with a ‘wink-wink’ (the bomb threats). While there was obviously some backroom dealmaking in the past in the Hugos, I don’t think that matters directly except to make any current allegations of impropriety hypocritical. What matters is the Hugos keep producing stale results, whether or not those results are the result of backroom dealmaking something is wrong and needs to be fixed. Like it doesn’t matter if Ferrari cheats as long as they own the F1 rules committee, it doesn’t matter if Tor cheats as long as the voter pool for the Hugos remains a stagnant pool with Tor fans over-represented. Likewise, if the side that’s telling me ‘racism is bad’ and ‘sexism is bad’ doesn’t exorcise the racists and sexists in its midst, those racists and sexists have an outsized influence on my perception of that side.
So much certainty that EPH will pass. I wonder why? Perhaps they intend to bloc-vote for it. That’ll show those bloc-voters!
.Seriously? Only if 40%+ of the American electorate are “extreme right-wingers”.
I’d guess closer to 20%, but we can argue it.
Vox Day probably qualifies as ‘Extreme Right Wing’ for some reasonable definitions thereof, but John C. Wright doesn’t sound much different than my parish priest
Does your Parish priest believe that half the American population is quite literally insane, that Liberals want to destroy truth, beauty, and literature purely because they are evil?
That’s John C. Wright
I find that very few people in the bubble have any genuine idea of what right wing people believe and how many of them believe what, so I can’t fault you too much. Still, I work in the private sector; saying what Irene said about the clients of the business I work for would have me on my ass in a heartbeat, even if it was absolutely 100% provably true.
Publishing has traditionally been rather lax about such things, as have many of the arts. We’ve seen something similar in the tech world (or at least I have, here in Silicon Valley).
It is also worth noting that calling your business partners “Christ-haters” would also usually get one tossed out on one’s ass.
Now — let me turn that around. Do you think that all the accusations being tossed at the “CHORFs”, “SJWS”, etc. have become impossible to prove? Since it’s not like the rhetoric has been going only one way in this case, at all.
Most of the accusations I’ve seen have been leveled at the anti-GamerGate SJWs, although there is some overlap, and most of those have been admitted by the Social Justice types in question, or at least denied with a ‘wink-wink’ (the bomb threats).
Well, let’s see; I have not seen a single person claim that they voted for Hugos for “quotas” or “affirmative action”, to pick just a single fairly prominent example. Do you agree that that’s now “impossible to prove?”
What matters is the Hugos keep producing stale results, whether or not those results are the result of backroom dealmaking something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
Hence, EPH. 🙂
it doesn’t matter if Tor cheats as long as the voter pool for the Hugos remains a stagnant pool with Tor fans over-represented. Likewise, if the side that’s telling me ‘racism is bad’ and ‘sexism is bad’ doesn’t exorcise the racists and sexists in its midst, those racists and sexists have an outsized influence on my perception of that side.
James May is not what I’d call a good source for that. But did you ever follow Racefail? There are plenty of people on the “side” you’re referring to who want to do the same thing.
But I’m really more interested in our other discussion – did my points about distinguishing “Liked more” and “better” make some sense to you? That is the kind of talk people on both sides of the Puppy divide need to be having, whether between non-puppies and Rabids, or anti-Puppies and Sads, or any other pairing (or group – I’m not unwilling to make a barroom chat of this). Because that’s where we’ll figure out what, if anything, we can do to fix this thing we all love without causing any more undue suffering.
You keep saying this, and no, it didn’t. It proved that WorldCon members didn’t feel slates were a legitimate tactic, and voted to defeat those who used slates. That’s not the same thing, especially when the “larger fandom as a whole” turned out to be ~500 people, or at least that number who showed up and voted.
The baby was cut in half, at least for the five ‘No Awarded” categories. The anti-Puppies have claimed to have the scissors with the block “No Award” slate, and the scissors is definitely bloody. There’s nothing to hide here.
Remember — every time you talk about “the larger fandom” you’re talking about ~200 people who nominated heavily influenced by a list ~5 people generated. That’s not “larger fandom”; that’s a different, and, it turns out, smaller clique.
I’ve been to conventions which could fit all the WorldCon voters into one of the presentation rooms with room to spare. Telling me the larger fandom is ~200 people is an absurdly stupid mis-representation of my argument. You know how big the real conventions are. You know how many people watch Science Fiction movies. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire sold 6.9 million copies in 24 hours. Stop insisting that .01% of that number is the size of fandom.
And you keep trollishly repeating the at this point completely discredited accusations about the Sad Puppies recommendations. You’ve provided no contrary evidence.
“So much certainty that EPH will pass. I wonder why? Perhaps they intend to bloc-vote for it. That’ll show those bloc-voters!”
Cute. Of course, it’s really a lot easier to have a “bloc” on a yes-or-no vote than a “nominate 5 things you’ve read and like”. I presume you can tell the difference, and are just having a joke here.
And part of that “certainty” is that for both the non-Puppy cloud and the Sad Puppies, EPH would give them what they claim to want — a diversity of options, with a certainty that no one would be able to “run the table” and shut everyone else out.
So only the people who *want* to shut out people who don’t agree with them would oppose EPH; and those people are apparently in the minority, and would hopefully be opposed by *all* the people who want a diversity of ideas and people within SF.
Essentially — if you’re against EPH, you need a reason about the protocol — because the only people who can object to what it’s supposed to do are those who don’t care about the Hugos, or about SF — but only want to hurt the awards, the field, and the people in it.
The baby was cut in half, at least for the five ‘No Awarded” categories. The anti-Puppies have claimed to have the scissors with the block “No Award” slate, and the scissors is definitely bloody. There’s nothing to hide here.
You can pick whatever metaphor you want — at least the baby one is less silly than the “nuked the village”, since the baby will be there next year.
Now, let’s see: in this model, we have the mother who’s prepared to go “OK, take the child” vs. the mother who goes “No, go ahead, cut it in half”, and the judge who threatens to do the cutting.
In this model, the mother who says “Go ahead, cut it in half” is the Puppies. I’m not sure that’s a morally superior position.
Remember — every time you talk about “the larger fandom” you’re talking about ~200 people who nominated heavily influenced by a list ~5 people generated. That’s not “larger fandom”; that’s a different, and, it turns out, smaller clique.
Telling me the larger fandom is ~200 people is an absurdly stupid mis-representation of my argument.
Well, that’s who the Sad Puppies *are*. Who they claim to represent is a different matter, but there’s no reason to believe they represent them at all.
The Puppies may have thought they were “opening it up to larger fandom”, but there’s no evidence they actually *did* so.
You know how big the real conventions are. You know how many people watch Science Fiction movies. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire sold 6.9 million copies in 24 hours. Stop insisting that .01% of that number is the size of fandom.
I’m not. I’m saying that number is the size of the Sad Puppies. Claiming to speak for the vast silent majority may have been what they wanted, but it’s not clear they do so.
I don’t know if my reference to a small cabal of people was the “discredited information” you were referring to — but IIRC, BT himself said he sat down with a small group of people and worked out the slate — his term, not mine. I can go and look for evidence, if you’d like, but it’s really beside the larger point, which is this:
Neither of us know what “fandom at large” wants. Indeed, the field has grown so big that to speak of it as a unitary body is difficult, at best. We just know what our part of it is doing, and that’s important to us both.
Let’s figure out if it’s possible to do it without so much vitriol, shall we?
It’s nice to know that someone else lost more productivity than I have since last night.
About China M. Unless I’ve mistaken who that is, puppies don’t vote with one mind. If I suspect that some individuals would be as unable to vote for that person as MZB they still would not no award or campaign against.
And no… White women are neither marginalized nor oppressed in science fiction.
Does your Parish priest believe that half the American population is quite literally insane, that Liberals want to destroy truth, beauty, and literature purely because they are evil? That’s John C. Wright What percentage of the American population thinks abortion is an unambiguously good thing? What percentage of the American population thinks forcing nuns to buy birth control is a good thing? What do most devout Catholics think of the political philosophy that endorses those views? Hint: it’s not very nice.
“What percentage of the American population thinks abortion is an unambiguously good thing? What percentage of the American population thinks forcing nuns to buy birth control is a good thing? What do most devout Catholics think of the political philosophy that endorses those views? Hint: it’s not very nice.”
1) A very small, nay miniscule one. The *right* to an abortion? Significantly higher, which is why the push has been for “legal and rare”.
2) No one is forcing nuns to buy birth control. They might have to sign a paper saying they won’t pay for birth control, at which point the insurance companies that insure the companies they work for will pay for birth control for other people. If signing a piece of paper is such great oppression, I suggest you need less fragile nuns.
(As a side note, Obama took the Catholic vote in the U.S. 50-48%.)
Of the Catholics I know (admittedly, likely to be on the liberal side, but by no means all), they *all*, without question, think that Wright is off the doctrinal deep end (and several others)
But hey — a different question, again to try and bring the conversation back to a useful realm: What are the best books you’ve read in the last month?
(For me, it was The Goblin Emperor, which was my last Hugo read, Ellen Kushner’s Swordspoint, and Player of Games (Banks). Well, that, and a lot of Michael Hicks on the Wars of the Roses.)
“And no… White women are neither marginalized nor oppressed in science fiction.”
And have you given thanks to WisCon for that? (If it were true, which I do not believe.)
I’m not. I’m saying that number is the size of the Sad Puppies. Claiming to speak for the vast silent majority may have been what they wanted, but it’s not clear they do so.
So the thing to do to people that want more people to get involved is to slander them and use that slander to justify getting everyone to use No Award slates to shut down the award process. And then you expect people you shut down are going to shut up, admit your superiority (instead of get more people and try again, with less restraint). How many people voting No Award were just getting their hate on against the evil bad people?
I don’t know if my reference to a small cabal of people was the “discredited information” you were referring to — but IIRC, BT himself said he sat down with a small group of people and worked out the slate — his term, not mine. I can go and look for evidence, if you’d like, but it’s really beside the larger point, which is this:
And everyone looked at his recommendations, read the works he recommended (because part of this is to just recommend books we’ve enjoyed so that other people can read them), and used his recommendations as well as what we liked when making our nominations. So stop with the trollishly dishonest characterization. Recommendations for books are good, especially when you are familiar with the people doing the recommendations. (As far as the editor awards, how many people know the editors personally enough to make a decision? Toni at least had a reputation for interacting with Baen’s fans.)
Neither of us know what “fandom at large” wants. Indeed, the field has grown so big that to speak of it as a unitary body is difficult, at best. We just know what our part of it is doing, and that’s important to us both.
Which of us acknowledges there’s a fandom that’s being excluded, and which thinks we’re just mindless sheep?
Let’s figure out if it’s possible to do it without so much vitriol, shall we?
I’m trying to keep a level head, but going through the same arguments over and over while my intelligence gets insulted is not easy.
But hey — a different question, again to try and bring the conversation back to a useful realm: What are the best books you’ve read in the last month?
In no particular order, and not including graphic novels or fanfic: Think Like a Freak, The Disassociation of Haruhi Suzumiya, Guards! Guards! (reread) and The Guns at Last Light.
“Let’s figure out if it’s possible to do it without so much vitriol, shall we?”
Pot, I have a collect call from Kettle for you….
From NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14175229):
When it comes to fiction, the gender gap is at its widest. Men account for only 20 percent of the fiction market, according to surveys conducted in the U.S., Canada and Britain.
As long as there is one genre of fiction that is predominantly male, the oppression and marginalization of women will continue!
“Let’s figure out if it’s possible to do it without so much vitriol, shall we?”
Sure thing. Just as soon as Lying Stalinist Shitstain and Mrs. Lying Stalinist Shitstain apologize for 30 years of character assassination. To each one of their victims. In person.
Not before.
My grandfather once gave me a great piece of advice: “Never trust a man who believes that the bad things in the world are caused by goblins. There are no gods in this world, and no demons either — there is only us, and what we do.”
To which I say, “Amen.”
That, and this: “You are no better than the writers you keep company with. So choose your books carefully.”
Amen, again.
And everyone looked at his recommendations, read the works he recommended (because part of this is to just recommend books we’ve enjoyed so that other people can read them), and used his recommendations as well as what we liked when making our nominations.
I am skeptical that “everyone” did that, especially given the relatively short time between slate announcement and nomination.
And I *know* that RP didn’t do that.
SP may have gotten caught in the crossfire between RP’s strong slating and the response to slating; then again, all the people who nominated individually got caught in the crossfire between Puppies and their alleged opponents who’d been “fixing” the Hugos before — if they even existed.
Recommendations for books are good, especially when you are familiar with the people doing the recommendations.
Yes, but when your recommendations come (mostly) 5-to-a-category, and are called a “slate”, that’s not so good.
Which of us acknowledges there’s a fandom that’s being excluded, and which thinks we’re just mindless sheep?
a) both,
b) neither.
If by “excluded” you mean “didn’t see people it wanted on the Hugo ballots”, then there isn’t really a fix for that. But there are lots of people who weren’t aware they could nominate, or how important the Hugos really were to them; some joined due to SP/RP. Some joined due to the counter-slate movement.
None of them are mindless sheep.
I’m trying to keep a level head, but going through the same arguments over and over while my intelligence gets insulted is not easy.
Then let’s step back, as I’ve been trying to do, from the arguments about the past. What is your goal for the future? Does EPH fit that bill? Would you be OK with a ballot that had Mieville, Wright, a media-tie-in, and two other books? (for example)
“In no particular order, and not including graphic novels or fanfic: Think Like a Freak, The Disassociation of Haruhi Suzumiya, Guards! Guards! (reread) and The Guns at Last Light.”
Cool – I have not heard of “The Disassociation…” — tell me more? Why did you like it?
““Let’s figure out if it’s possible to do it without so much vitriol, shall we?”
Sure thing. Just as soon as Lying Stalinist Shitstain and Mrs. Lying Stalinist Shitstain apologize for 30 years of character assassination. To each one of their victims. In person.
Not before.”
Well, it’s clear *you’re* hopeless in the “let’s put SF above vitriol” category, so I won’t even bother.
“so I won’t even bother.”
Who the hell are you, and why should I care about your opinion? You’re not the insulted parties, nor are you (you claim) one of the insulters.
So, what’s it to you, cobber? How, exactly, are you going to “put SF above vitriol”?
The time for you to do that, in the wildly unlikely event that you had any power to do so, was 30 years ago.
Too late now, son. This time it goes all the way to the endgame.
Speaking strictly for myself, here.
“And have you given thanks to WisCon for that? (If it were true, which I do not believe.)”
WisCon is such a hot bed of hostility and racism that they have to have safe spaces for the guests of color to hide away from everyone else. /sarc
Actually… if I were to blame something for keeping women a bit less successful in SF… it’s not the liberal, mostly female editors, BTW… unless you want to contend that offices with 90% women and 90% progressive politics are arms of the repressive patriarchy… which you’re welcome to do if you wish…
If I were to blame something for keeping women a bit less successful in SF than men I would blame the fact that women tend (as a general but not absolute rule) to take various writing advice seriously which they should not take seriously. But there is a whole industry (likely well represented at WisCon) that tells new female writers what they’re supposed to write about in order to succeed, which tends in general to be horrible advice aimed at vulnerable learners. After all, if a luminary of the field says you’re supposed to write important literature that includes non-binary gender enough times and this is emphasized over all other matters of craft and story with some snide remarks about exploding spaceships as frosting, why wouldn’t you believe it? People say that women are better shots with guns because we follow instructions much better than men. What “instructions” are women writers given by the message-and-literature crowd; the artist before mercenary crowd? Most of them are bad messages.
Read through Laura Mixon’s Hugo award winning article… pay attention to the way she describes writers, nearly all female, who reported PTSD type reactions from just sitting down at the keyboard. Read and pay attention to the actions and the emotions. The *terror* of offending, of writing the right things but in the wrong way… who laid that burden on them?
The *industry* is dominated by women. It’s dominated by progressive politics in the offices and in the decision making, gate keeping, parts of it. Are you going to suggest that these people do not give women writers (or those of color or interesting identity) a fair shake?
“Lets be civil” has come to mean not much more than “sit and listen while I insult you and you’re not allowed to insult me back because your insults are name calling and I’m just telling the truth.”
This is the reality where “token” isn’t an insult even beginning to approach the extreme badness of a word like “idiot.” Seriously… fellow showed up at Sarah’s a while ago…
T: You’re a token.
S: You’re an idiot.
T: Way to keep the high ground…
Because… reality…
Reminds me of an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where Buffy started wrecking a demonic slaving operation and one of the demon leaders was most distressed, bleating:
“Humans don’t fight back! HUMANS DON’T FIGHT BACK! THAT’S HOW THIS WORKS!!!!”
I guess Sad Puppies fighting back is similarly distressing to some of you folks. I’m oddly unmoved.
Little hint: Civility is a two-way street.
““Lets be civil” has come to mean not much more than “sit and listen while I insult you and you’re not allowed to insult me back because your insults are name calling and I’m just telling the truth.””
Fine. What language would you like in an effort to avoid having another year of vitriol and screwed-up awards?
I mean, I can tell it’s pretty much hopeless, judging from the reactions of people like Doc Locketopus up there, but is there anything that can be done to avoid Hugo War Part Whatever? Or are we doomed to another “Hey, we can nominate in lockstep” vs. “Hey, we can no award the slates” mess, which does no one save, perhaps a few trolls any good?
“I guess Sad Puppies fighting back is similarly distressing to some of you folks. I’m oddly unmoved.
Little hint: Civility is a two-way street.”
Indeed it is. And there’s been a lack of it from Puppies, and from those who oppose the Puppies most vehemently.
What do you propose we do about it?
Why yes Sschwartzoak it is. Perhaps the SJW’s could have been polite from the beginning and avoided this whole mess.
Sorry, have we moved to the People Were Mean To Me as the current justification for the Puppies campaign? Good to know that we’re revisiting the greatest hits of the past several months.
sschwartzoak:
“Indeed it is. And there’s been a lack of it from Puppies, and from those who oppose the Puppies most vehemently. ”
More the latter than the former, really.
“What do you propose we do about it?”
I’ve been following the Hugo Controversy this year with interest (and when I read what the anti-Puppies make up, some disgust), but I’ll admit I wasn’t part of the vote. Consequently, I’m kind of an outsider here, but I’d start by asking for:
-Both sides acknowledging that the “slates” did end up pushing out some worthy candidates for nomination this year.
-Both sides acknowledging the the “Noah Ward” vote also deprived worthy nominees.
-Both sides condemning *all* of the persons who insist on spreading the lie that any of the Sad Puppies are racist, sexist or homophobic, and those craven individuals that deliberately mischaracterised Brad’s (admittedly touching) rebuttal as “using his family as human shields).
-In fact, lets also ask that the Puppy Kicker* who previously spread rumours that Larrry Correia is a wive-beater come forward, try to justify his or herself, and then apologise for their wrongdoing.
That would be a fair start, I think.
(*I know some of the anti-Puppies don’t like this term as it is kind of an “evil” label, but let’s face it, it’s appropriate for someone who pulls shit like this.)
I mean, I can tell it’s pretty much hopeless, judging from the reactions of people like Doc Locketopus up there, but is there anything that can be done to avoid Hugo War Part Whatever? Or are we doomed to another “Hey, we can nominate in lockstep” vs. “Hey, we can no award the slates” mess, which does no one save, perhaps a few trolls any good?
Let’s turn this back the other direction, what will it take to get the inherently divisive “social justice” and the resultant politics of personal destruction out of Science Fiction? The reactions to Sad Puppies 1 and 2 have demonstrated that ultimately, this isn’t about the “slates”, because we saw the exact same reactions before from the Social Justice advocates when we complained about the clique dominating the Hugos.
Generally, wars continue until one of the two sides gives up. Right now, both sides think that the mess answer is better than their side giving up. You’re right above when you’ve pointed out that the vast majority of the fans are on the fence. The question is, should they be on the fence? What do the fans really want from their Science Fiction, politics or enjoyment? I’m willing to bet it’s enjoyment, because when this question has come up in other areas, like video games, the fans have overwhelmingly revolted against the politicization. The only reason this hasn’t happened in Science Fiction is that the very small group of TrueFans that serve as gatekeepers are in cahoots with those wanting to politicize the genre, and they’ve been able to spin the results to keep the larger fandom in the dark. And the result is exactly as I’ve demonstrated above, a TrueFandom with increasingly different taste in Science Fiction than the larger fandom, which makes the TrueFans and their awards increasingly irrelevant.
Cool – I have not heard of “The Disassociation…” — tell me more? Why did you like it? It’s part of a larger, originally Japanese light novel series that I was introduced to via the anime. There are certain things I enjoy from fiction I read, which the series excels at. I enjoy being surprised; most recent Science Fiction is predictable. I especially enjoy it when a big secret is hinted at and I don’t figure out the hints until the big reveal, at which point I immediately recall the hints; to me, that’s an author that is doing their plot work. I appreciate intelligent cultural references, and have been repeatedly surprised that Japanese works require a better grasp of history and literature to grasp the details, even non-Japanese history and literature, than most domestic fiction, which often relies on very time sensitive pop culture (for minor examples: one character nicknames her dog Rousseau as “JJ”; I consider it a challenge to identify some of the science fiction books another character reads from their descriptions.) The series has had the most entertaining time travel plot use I’ve seen (it helps that it’s a non-viewpoint character with the ability, so the mechanics are entirely hidden, so it’s “what could you do with time travel”, not “how does time travel work”), as well as giving what to me is a very well done look at the character development of a non-human mentality. The Disassociation of Haruhi Suzumiya is the 9th book in a currently 10 book (and not yet completed) series, which I finished all of in the past month, but it’s the one in the series that has most captured my imagination to grasp out the not yet revealed mechanics of the universe.
The Honey Badgers Brigade weighs in:
http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/radio/nerdrevolt-27-sad-puppies-proven-right-remain-sad/
Kate, Brad and Sarah are interviewed.
“-Both sides acknowledging that the “slates” did end up pushing out some worthy candidates for nomination this year.”
Works for me.
“Both sides acknowledging the the “Noah Ward” vote also deprived worthy nominees.”
Works for me.
“Both sides condemning *all* of the persons who insist on spreading the lie that any of the Sad Puppies are racist, sexist or homophobic, and those craven individuals that deliberately mischaracterised Brad’s (admittedly touching) rebuttal as “using his family as human shields).”
OK. Now here we hit a snag — indeed, two.
First: I don’t know if, for example, John C. Wright (member of the ELoE, and named consultant on the SP slate) counts as a Sad Puppy. Because people calling him homophobic weren’t lying, to pick but one example.
Second: Are you willing to have both sides condemn those who spread the lie that recent Hugo winners were “affirmative action” picks, chosen not because people liked them but because of who wrote them?
If not, then what you appear to be saying is “In order for there to be peace, you all need to admit you were wrong about us, while we remain right in all things.”
Which is not exactly a recipe for a lasting peace.
Let’s turn this back the other direction, what will it take to get the inherently divisive “social justice” and the resultant politics of personal destruction out of Science Fiction?
That depends on how you define “social justice”. If you mean people trying to increase diversity, then why do we want them out? If you mean people engaging in affirmative action to ensure awards get spread around via a quota system, it’s not there, so we don’t need to get rid of it. 🙂
The reactions to Sad Puppies 1 and 2 have demonstrated that ultimately, this isn’t about the “slates”, because we saw the exact same reactions before from the Social Justice advocates when we complained about the clique dominating the Hugos.
Well, and encouraged bloc voting to get specific people Hugos, and chose people for the ballot specifically in order to annoy/anger/etc. people — and then, surprise surprise, they got annoyed/angered/etc.
You’re right above when you’ve pointed out that the vast majority of the fans are on the fence. The question is, should they be on the fence? What do the fans really want from their Science Fiction, politics or enjoyment?
Well, that depends on what you mean by “politics”.
I’m sure that the vast majority of fans prefer reading and talking about SF to arguing about slates, ballots, etc., etc., and so forth — internal politics.
But when it comes to what they read, separating “politics” from “enjoyment” is much more difficult. For example: I am sure some people who read (and enjoy) Tom Kratman do so because of his political viewpoint. Same for some people who read China Mieville or Chip Delany.
Not to mention that, as has been established over and over again throughout this discussion, one person’s “politics” is another person’s “representation” or “the way things are”.
I’m willing to bet it’s enjoyment, because when this question has come up in other areas, like video games, the fans have overwhelmingly revolted against the politicization.
It’s true — most gamers blew off/ignored/etc. Gamergate.
The only reason this hasn’t happened in Science Fiction is that the very small group of TrueFans that serve as gatekeepers are in cahoots with those wanting to politicize the genre, and they’ve been able to spin the results to keep the larger fandom in the dark.
The genre has been politicized from the start, has always been politicized, and always will; it’s impossible to write about the future (or about worlds that never were) without making some level of political statement, and a lot of people go well beyond implicit statements.
And “larger fandom” is a vast and multiplex concept; after all, you don’t think that the anime fans and the Star Wars fans think and feel the same, do you? Or the Transformational Fandom folks? Or the filkers? or the Transformers toy collectors?
The series has had the most entertaining time travel plot use I’ve seen (it helps that it’s a non-viewpoint character with the ability, so the mechanics are entirely hidden, so it’s “what could you do with time travel”, not “how does time travel work”), as well as giving what to me is a very well done look at the character development of a non-human mentality.
Definitely sounds interesting; I think I’ll track down…I guess book #1 in the series?
Civility… We could start with understanding that “nazi” and “token” and “racist” are far and away more offensive, and deliberately so, than calling someone an “idiot” or a “pussy” could ever be.
Affirmative action…. This is a bit like claiming that Wright is a homophobe. It’s irrational to insist that no one notice nor comment on the fact that people are proudly promoting and even demanding that writers be favored because of their diversity quotient. When you’re being criticized for not nominating certain sorts of diversity the demand not to name and identify this as what it is is silly. “Affirmative action” always brings the suspicion that someone more skilled was passed over. This is why AA hurts as much or more than it helps.
The solution is to actually stop doing it and stop demanding that other people do it.
“Civility… We could start with understanding that “nazi” and “token” and “racist” are far and away more offensive, and deliberately so, than calling someone an “idiot” or a “pussy” could ever be.”
Let me ask, then: What are you supposed to call someone who is, in fact, being racist? (I happen to prefer saying “Dude, that’s racist” rather than “Dude, you’re a racist”, but I try to be precise.)
Also, if your epithet of choice (as was the case for one of the Rabid Puppies) is “pussy”, they might as well admit to being called a “sexist” perfectly legitimately. 🙂
First: I don’t know if, for example, John C. Wright (member of the ELoE, and named consultant on the SP slate) counts as a Sad Puppy. Because people calling him homophobic weren’t lying, to pick but one example.
Remember how I keep harping on superficial diversity, and how you seem to not be able to understand non-liberals? Here’s a good example. People have different values and, being values, they can’t be individually proven whether correct or incorrect. Believing that the negative effects of sexual liberation outweigh the positive is the result of one of those values, and it’s not uncommon for devout Catholics and Christians to have that value. I recognize that it’s unprovable, and that other values are just as logical, but grant those that believe that treating sex as short-term physical pleasure is a net negative for both individuals and society the luxury of being sincere and logical in their beliefs.
That depends on how you define “social justice”. If you mean people trying to increase diversity, then why do we want them out? If you mean people engaging in affirmative action to ensure awards get spread around via a quota system, it’s not there, so we don’t need to get rid of it. 🙂
Social Justice: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
I don’t know what irks me the most about those that claim to advocate in the name of “social justice”, that they’re blind to the sheer ego it takes to claim that they can adjudicate what is truly just, or that they’re so blind to the second and higher order effects of what they advocate. Nobody else claims to be perfect.
Well, and encouraged bloc voting to get specific people Hugos, and chose people for the ballot specifically in order to annoy/anger/etc. people — and then, surprise surprise, they got annoyed/angered/etc.
At this point, I’m going to have to call you a liar and troll. You’ve been repeatedly called out on this specific example, repeating it doesn’t make it true, it makes you intentionally deceptive. Sad Puppies has always been a recommendation list, it’s books Brand and company thought were good. It wasn’t designed to annoy people, it was designed to recommend worthy books that would never get any notice because they weren’t picked by the Tor / SJW gatekeepers. Block voting wasn’t encouraged. The fact that you can go into the next thread and see people saying “I hadn’t read any good science fiction in years because it was all Social Justice crap, and then I read your recommendations and really enjoyed it and went out and bought the sequels” proves that Brad stumbled on to an underserved market. They hadn’t seen any good Science Fiction in years, of course they thought it was awesome.
And “larger fandom” is a vast and multiplex concept; after all, you don’t think that the anime fans and the Star Wars fans think and feel the same, do you? Or the Transformational Fandom folks? Or the filkers? or the Transformers toy collectors?
Which is why being exclusionary in the name of “diversity” (the superficial kind) and “social justice” is a net loser. Your side is the one insisting all fans must march in lockstep with politics. Nobody is trying to kick Scalzi out of Science Fiction, as you apparently insist on kicking Wright and Beale out of Science Fiction for their politics.
Let me ask, then: What are you supposed to call someone who is, in fact, being racist? (I happen to prefer saying “Dude, that’s racist” rather than “Dude, you’re a racist”, but I try to be precise.)
For some of them, the correct term is “Social Justice Advocate”.
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; prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
By this definition (from a Google search for ‘define racism’), based on his “Whites are living on easy mode” screed alone, Scalzi is unquestionably a racist.
“What are you supposed to call someone who is, in fact, being racist? ”
“Racist” how? Racist as in “lynches black people” racist? “Racist” as in “disagrees with one or more of Barack Obama’s policies” racist? Racist as in “once used the word ‘niggardly’ (correctly)” racist? “Racist” has been used as a bludgeon in all three of those situations, and many others besides. It’s the all-purpose slur that CHORFs like Lying Stalinist Shitstain and Mrs. Lying Stalinist Shitstain toss out to try to silence their opponents.
Define the term. Maybe we can start with racist as seen in the observed hiring policies of Tor Books. Ever see a picture of the staff there?
Here’s a good example. People have different values and, being values, they can’t be individually proven whether correct or incorrect.
I’m presuming you mean “the truth of the belief” can’t be proven, rather than “whether or not someone holds the value” can’t be proven.
Believing that the negative effects of sexual liberation outweigh the positive is the result of one of those values, and it’s not uncommon for devout Catholics and Christians to have that value.
No; and there are people I greatly respect who hold that value. They are also not referring to large swathes of the population as Morlocks who wish to destroy all that is beautiful and good simply because it is beautiful and good.
I recognize that it’s unprovable, and that other values are just as logical, but grant those that believe that treating sex as short-term physical pleasure is a net negative for both individuals and society the luxury of being sincere and logical in their beliefs.
See above. The vitriol and commentary that Mr. Wright has thrown has far exceeded in viciousness any that was thrown at him, and if you expect people to grant him a blank check, then do not expect any apologies from *anyone* for their behavior, as he’s shown that there’s no reason to apologize.
“Social Justice: justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.”
Well, let’s see; that’s three different sets of things. Not all (indeed, I suspect very few) people painted as SJWs are communists, so they don’t fit the first. Equality of Opportunity is something I keep hearing *republicans* claim is the kind of equality they support, vs. Equality of Outcome. As for privileges; again, why is campaigning against unearned privilege a bad thing that should be driven out of SF?
At this point, I’m going to have to call you a liar and troll. You’ve been repeatedly called out on this specific example, repeating it doesn’t make it true, it makes you intentionally deceptive. Sad Puppies has always been a recommendation list, it’s books Brand and company thought were good.
Larry Correia, for SP2 in particular (though for SP1 he specifically told literary types to get out) deliberately chose works, by his own admission, in order to annoy people. So, no lying, and no trolling. If you don’t own up to that part of the history of your movement, then we’ve got a big problem.
” you can support awesome books winning fancy Hugo awards and drive the literati insane! ”
” For those of you who weren’t readers last year, Sad Puppies 1 was my attempt to poke the humorless literati in the eye by getting MHN a Hugo nomination.”
“So for $60 you can stick it to the man…”
And from the very start, it’s been a slate. LC called it a slate. BT called it a slate.
“The fact that you can go into the next thread and see people saying “I hadn’t read any good science fiction in years because it was all Social Justice crap, and then I read your recommendations and really enjoyed it and went out and bought the sequels” proves that Brad stumbled on to an underserved market. They hadn’t seen any good Science Fiction in years, of course they thought it was awesome.”
Does this mean the fact that many more people showed up to No Award the slate means that he’s managed to offend an even larger market? No one is arguing that there were people who didn’t like the Hugo Award winners — that’s not the same as saying they are somehow a majority, or even a large part of the overall market.
“Which is why being exclusionary in the name of “diversity” (the superficial kind) and “social justice” is a net loser. Your side is the one insisting all fans must march in lockstep with politics. Nobody is trying to kick Scalzi out of Science Fiction, as you apparently insist on kicking Wright and Beale out of Science Fiction for their politics.”
Actually, both VD and JCW are trying, to, say, kick Patrick and Teresa Nielsen Hayden out of SF, and view Scalzi as a creature of theirs, for example. So *you* may not be trying to, but people are — and they’re people from “your side” of the fence. (Since I refuse to accept the notion that this is a two-sided system, except insofar as dachshunds and not-dachshunds are a “two-sided” system.)
“insisting all fans must march in lockstep with politics.”
Not at all. I’m perfectly happy for Baen’s bar to exist, for JCW to keep publishing his work if he wants — I just don’t feel that a few hundred fans have the right to dictate, for political reasons, what everyone else has to choose from when it comes to an award that many of those few hundred don’t care about except as a tool in a much larger culture war.
To be clear: “not winning a Hugo award” is not “being kicked out of SF”.
While we’re on the subject: how has Wright’s alleged “homophobia” actually harmed you, or anyone, in any way?
If it hasn’t, my suggestion would be that you ignore it. He has a different opinion than you. SO WHAT? You really don’t like his opinion. SO WHAT? If a person has no power over me (or reasonable prospects of gaining such power, e.g. someone running for political office), their opinion DOES NOT MATTER. Why this crusade to make everyone think the same? It’s not that Lying Stalinist Shitstain has any kind of moral aversion to people with unsavory opinions, given that he willingly hangs around with, you know, Stalinists, and NAMBLA members, and…
If you keep heading down this road, I really, really don’t think you’re going to enjoy the destination.
By this definition (from a Google search for ‘define racism’), based on his “Whites are living on easy mode” screed alone, Scalzi is unquestionably a racist.
Not at all. He didn’t say any race was superior to any other, or inferior. He said that socially, certain people are given advantages that others don’t get. Remember that “privileges” line you were complaining about? Well, here it is.
So, no, that post doesn’t make Scalzi racist.
(How you can view that as making Scalzi racist, while for example considering JCW not to be homophobic, despite his assertion that is the natural reaction of straight men to want to beat gay men with tire irons, is beyond me.)
Now everyone calm down and de-stress while some puppets teach us all a lesson about getting along:
Well played, Civilis, well-played. 🙂
(How you can view that as making Scalzi racist, while for example considering JCW not to be homophobic, despite his assertion that is the natural reaction of straight men to want to beat gay men with tire irons, is beyond me.)
I love going to Google and getting the definition of words. Here’s the definition for homophobia:
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people
Catholics are told to “hate the sin, love the sinner”. Believing that homosexual activity (or premarital sex, or married people having sex with a condom, or any of the other social taboos on sex Catholics have) is wrong doesn’t mean you hate or dislike or are prejudiced against the people that are guilty of that particular sin. It means you recognize that people are human.
Not at all. He didn’t say any race was superior to any other, or inferior. He said that socially, certain people are given advantages that others don’t get. Remember that “privileges” line you were complaining about? Well, here it is.
Scalzi believes whites are morally inferior to non-whites (although whites that have repented and now preach the social justice gospel get a pass). He’s also racist because he lumps all non-white minorities together. (if I were to somehow confuse a Sikh for a Muslim, I’d be branded as ‘racist’; he doesn’t get a pass for a much greater violation that literally involves race). Assuming that white people have privileges granted by their race is literally racist, according to the definition I quoted.
-In fact, lets also ask that the Puppy Kicker* who previously spread rumours that Larrry Correia is a wive-beater come forward, try to justify his or herself, and then apologise for their wrongdoing.
To Mrs. Correia.
To be clear: “not winning a Hugo award” is not “being kicked out of SF”.
You seem to like rules; Beale (aka Vox Day) was literally expelled (kicked out) of the SFWA in violation of actual, written rules. That’s a lot closer to to kicking someone out of Science Fiction than trying to get the Nielsen Haydens fired by Tor for insulting Tor’s own authors.
Does this mean the fact that many more people showed up to No Award the slate means that he’s managed to offend an even larger market? No one is arguing that there were people who didn’t like the Hugo Award winners — that’s not the same as saying they are somehow a majority, or even a large part of the overall market.
All it means is, by hook or by crook, you mobilized more people this year. The TrueFans (such as GRRM) are insisting that they alone are fit to decide the Hugo, that’s not ‘bringing people that feel excluded in’ or ‘trying to expand the voting membership’. Look at the nasty names we got called when it looked like we had *gasp* *shock* *horror* reached out to video gamers that may be Science Fiction fans *dramatic faint*!
See above. The vitriol and commentary that Mr. Wright has thrown has far exceeded in viciousness any that was thrown at him, and if you expect people to grant him a blank check, then do not expect any apologies from *anyone* for their behavior, as he’s shown that there’s no reason to apologize.
I’ve been meaning to ask, did Mr. Wright run over your cat or something? Seriously, I was shocked at how calm and toned down his response to being gravely insulted by Irene Gallo was. Perhaps you’ve been arguing with a different Mr. Wright?
Well, let’s see; that’s three different sets of things. Not all (indeed, I suspect very few) people painted as SJWs are communists, so they don’t fit the first. Equality of Opportunity is something I keep hearing *republicans* claim is the kind of equality they support, vs. Equality of Outcome. As for privileges; again, why is campaigning against unearned privilege a bad thing that should be driven out of SF?
Believing in the redistribution of wealth doesn’t require a true communist. “Gasp, women make 97c for every 1$ a man makes! Turn heaven and Earth over to rectify this now!” compared to all the little injustices that go the other direction. Conservatives equate Equality of Opportunity to the Rule of Law. Those that believe in encouraging riots and chanting “No Justice! No Peace!” don’t. Who has ‘privilege’, Torgersen or Scalzi? Weisskopf or Nielsen Hayden?
Larry Correia, for SP2 in particular (though for SP1 he specifically told literary types to get out) deliberately chose works, by his own admission, in order to annoy people. So, no lying, and no trolling. If you don’t own up to that part of the history of your movement, then we’ve got a big problem.
Here’s a hint: anything Larry nominated would have annoyed people, so that proves nothing. The fact that it was referred to as a ‘slate’ proves nothing. I’d advise you to go back and read the discussion, here and elsewhere, but I don’t want to force you to waste a week. Nobody took it as ‘vote these’ except those looking to find fault.
I love going to Google and getting the definition of words. Here’s the definition for homophobia:
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people
Catholics are told to “hate the sin, love the sinner”. Believing that homosexual activity (or premarital sex, or married people having sex with a condom, or any of the other social taboos on sex Catholics have) is wrong doesn’t mean you hate or dislike or are prejudiced against the people that are guilty of that particular sin. It means you recognize that people are human.
And if I said I love Catholics, I just think that they’re horrifically misguided by the evil, evil priests and that arch-evil, the Pope, who wishes to destroy all that is good in life, and that Catholics can be redeemed if they abandon their religion immediately, stop acting like it, seek forgiveness, etc., etc., and so forth, but if they don’t, the destruction of civilization is their fault, some people might consider me anti-Catholic to the level of being prejudiced.
That’s JCW in a nutshell about LGBTQ folk.
Scalzi believes whites are morally inferior to non-whites (although whites that have repented and now preach the social justice gospel get a pass).
Citation, please: saying “You have a privilege” is not the same as “you are morally inferior.”
He’s also racist because he lumps all non-white minorities together. (if I were to somehow confuse a Sikh for a Muslim, I’d be branded as ‘racist’; he doesn’t get a pass for a much greater violation that literally involves race).
When you’re discussing “white people” vs. “non-white people”, especially in terms of the privileges granted one group, you’re not being racist.
Assuming that white people have privileges granted by their race is literally racist, according to the definition I quoted.
Nompe, especially since he was speaking *within a given culture*.
You seem to like rules; Beale (aka Vox Day) was literally expelled (kicked out) of the SFWA in violation of actual, written rules. That’s a lot closer to to kicking someone out of Science Fiction than trying to get the Nielsen Haydens fired by Tor for insulting Tor’s own authors.
So, wait; getting someone removed from an organization because they violated its rules (which does not prevent him from writing SF at all) is more like it than trying to arrange for someone to lose their job because they did something that, while not politic, was not against the rules?
You lose me here.
All it means is, by hook or by crook, you mobilized more people this year. The TrueFans (such as GRRM) are insisting that they alone are fit to decide the Hugo
Nompe. You keep putting those words in their mouths, and they keep not fitting. The argument was that slate-voting, claiming the entire ballot by a small minority, was wrong, and should be fought against.
that’s not ‘bringing people that feel excluded in’ or ‘trying to expand the voting membership’.
Lots of long-time SF fans who hadn’t voted before voted for the first time — or does it only count as “expanding the voting membership” if they don’t agree with the people who were part of the voting membership before?
Look at the nasty names we got called when it looked like we had *gasp* *shock* *horror* reached out to video gamers that may be Science Fiction fans *dramatic faint*!
That’s because there’s a difference between “reaching out to video gamers” and “reaching out to Gamergate”; given that GG had already been involved in a lot of tactics far nastier than had already been deployed in the feud to date had more than a little bit to do with it.
I’ve been meaning to ask, did Mr. Wright run over your cat or something? Seriously, I was shocked at how calm and toned down his response to being gravely insulted by Irene Gallo was. Perhaps you’ve been arguing with a different Mr. Wright?
Go look at his columns on Everyjoe. Or on his website. As I said, he’s said far worse, repeatedly, than anything Irene Gallo said, and when called on it, doubled/tripled/quadrupled down.
Believing in the redistribution of wealth doesn’t require a true communist. “Gasp, women make 97c for every 1$ a man makes! Turn heaven and Earth over to rectify this now!” compared to all the little injustices that go the other direction.
$0.78 isn’t $0.97, but who’s going to quibble about a mere 20%? 😉 You make it sound as if that’s the only way in which women are not treated equally in this country — what about “all the little injustices that go the other other direction”?
Conservatives equate Equality of Opportunity to the Rule of Law.
Only when the law is what they wish it to be.
Those that believe in encouraging riots and chanting “No Justice! No Peace!” don’t.
So people, if they feel the law is unjust, are supposed to…what? Suffer quietly until they’re lucky enough that it changes?
Who has ‘privilege’, Torgersen or Scalzi? Weisskopf or Nielsen Hayden?
That depends on the situation; I don’t know enough about BT or JS to speak to it, and there are certainly places where PNH has privilege over TW.
Here’s a hint: anything Larry nominated would have annoyed people, so that proves nothing. The fact that it was referred to as a ‘slate’ proves nothing.
Well, then you all should be more careful with your words. But if all this proves “nothing”, then I see the evidence that the claims of “SJW cabal” and the like have even *less* evidence. Heck, if LC calling it a slate and saying he’s doing it *to annoy people* doesn’t mean it was a slate and done to annoy people, then why shall we presume Irene Gallo was doing anything other than telling a slightly-over-the-top joke, and since she apologized, all’s cool?
I mean, really; this is a double-standard here.
Nobody took it as ‘vote these’ except those looking to find fault.
As I’ve said, this *might* be true among Sad Puppies, though the analysis I’ve seen shows significant bloc voting. It was *definitely* taken this way among Rabids — after all, we have plenty of people complaining that the RP nominee for Best Graphic Work wasn’t included in their packet — when it’s a *free* *online* *webcomic*. This rather undercuts the idea they’d read before nominating.
And if I said I love Catholics, I just think that they’re horrifically misguided by the evil, evil priests and that arch-evil, the Pope, who wishes to destroy all that is good in life, and that Catholics can be redeemed if they abandon their religion immediately, stop acting like it, seek forgiveness, etc., etc., and so forth, but if they don’t, the destruction of civilization is their fault, some people might consider me anti-Catholic to the level of being prejudiced.
Did Wright run over your cat, your mother and your kids? I think I’m beginning to understand why you’ve got such a beef with him and anyone that seems allied or having similar views; orthodox Christian values make no sense to you, so they seem to be personal insults or attacks. He doesn’t agree with or recognize values you hold because they lead to better results for people you know well, while you have a different risk assessment than he does of the larger scale negative results he sees. This isn’t easy for anyone. I know a fair number of self-identified conservatives, and bristle when you use the epithet ‘right wing extremists’ for people I know that are just trying to run a business or raise their kids with values they sincerely believe will serve them best in the long term. (Around 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative, so half of those are right-wing extremists.)
I believe that a misguided crusade for “Social Justice” is responsible for a lot of serious problems in the world; the war on poverty has perpetuated poverty among many, especially minorities; the hatred of American/Western exceptionalism has led to embracing and empowering despotic regimes and the resultant war and slaughter; the unwillingness to accept that life isn’t fair has led to redistributive economic policies that have impoverished hundreds of millions of people worldwide (I took debate in High School, so ‘the fall of civilization necessarily follows’). That make that thinking that sexual liberation has led to the decline of the American family and the resultant social and cultural damage kid stuff. Still, that doesn’t mean I hate or dislike or fear people that believe in social justice. I am probably reasonably considered prejudiced, but I acknowledge that and try to make sure I fight against treating people bad because I am prejudiced against what they believe.
While we’re on the subject: how has Wright’s alleged “homophobia” actually harmed you, or anyone, in any way?
My guess:
If it hasn’t, my suggestion would be that you ignore it. He has a different opinion than you.
Poor dears. They need a safe space now.
SO WHAT?
Don’t be so insensitive. 😉
$0.78 isn’t $0.97, but who’s going to quibble about a mere 20%? 😉 You make it sound as if that’s the only way in which women are not treated equally in this country — what about “all the little injustices that go the other other direction”?
I’m sorry, $.78 isn’t $.95. As far as the others… men are more likely to go to prison, spend more time in prison for the same crime, are more likely to be the victim of violent crime, more likely to be injured or killed on the job, less likely to go to college, and have a significantly shorter life expectancy. None of those, however, are worthy of fixing like that nickel difference. And that is why talk of “justice” and “privilege” is bullshit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/02/the-equal-pay-day-factoid-that-women-make-78-cents-for-every-dollar-earned-by-men/
That’s because there’s a difference between “reaching out to video gamers” and “reaching out to Gamergate”; given that GG had already been involved in a lot of tactics far nastier than had already been deployed in the feud to date had more than a little bit to do with it.
BULLSHIT. Seriously, two words: bomb threats. ( I love the little touch that the GamerGaters had to help carry out one of their members… a disabled lesbian… at the first meeting that was shut down.) We have demonstrable bad behavior by the anti-GG SJWs, and we have the demonstrable bad behavior that led to the formation of GamerGate. Seriously nasty emails are all you have, and the admission that much of that came from trolls stoking the fires. If nasty emails were enough to indict a side, everyone would be guilty.
So people, if they feel the law is unjust, are supposed to…what? Suffer quietly until they’re lucky enough that it changes?
So anyone that doesn’t like the law is supposed to go destroying random people’s property because they’re mad? Seriously, you complain that Sad Puppies may have lobbied with a slate for their cause and this is awful, but wrecking people’s lives because the evidence shows your boy charged a cop after trying to steal his gun is ok? The Sad Puppies felt things are unjust, worked within the rules to change it, and you’re hammering them for it, and you then throw this line out?
Did Wright run over your cat, your mother and your kids?
Nompe. I’ve just read what he’s written, and that’s more or less the equivalent, expressed back. Seriously. Go read him, and look at his rhetoric.
orthodox Christian values make no sense to you, so they seem to be personal insults or attacks.
Like helping the needy, or loving one another?
I know a fair number of self-identified conservatives, and bristle when you use the epithet ‘right wing extremists’ for people I know that are just trying to run a business or raise their kids with values they sincerely believe will serve them best in the long term. (Around 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative, so half of those are right-wing extremists.)
And why do you think that it’s not the other way around? I am not the one, as I’ve said before, who wrote off, in print, 50%+ of the American population as hopelessly insane.
All I’ve said, from the beginning, is that if Wright’s rhetoric gets a pass, then there is no call for an apology from anyone for what’s been said about the Puppies, as it’s been *milder* than what he used.
So, if you want to vigorously defend Wright’s freedom to express his opinion without regret, then you should accept Irene Gallo’s apology, and nothing PNH or Scalzi or anyone else has risen to the same level.
@sschwartzoak on August 25, 2015 at 9:05 pm said:
>> And everyone looked at his recommendations, read the works he recommended (because part of this is to just recommend books we’ve enjoyed so that other people can read them), and used his recommendations as well as what we liked when making our nominations.
I> am skeptical that “everyone” did that, especially given the relatively short time between slate announcement and nomination.
Do you realize that in that “relatively short time” Larry organized book bombs for all of the works available for sale and as a result sold thousands of copies of all of the works?
I read the entire Hugo packet (that I hadn’t already read) in about a week. The time between the SP3 initial announcement and the nominations closing was a couple of months. Pleanty of time to read the works (and many SP had already read a lot of them)
as far as the question of if people voted in lock-step or not. That’s actually fairly easy to determine now. Look at the vote totals for both the nominations and the final vote. The analysis shows that ~2500 people voted no award and nothing on any puppy list. ~1000 voted no award in many cases, but did vote for some works that were on the puppy lists. The analysis also shows that there were ~525-550 people who voted almost exactly the RP list. The SP vote is much harder to quantify by vote analysis as it was FAR less well defined than the 2500 person no-award slate or the 550 RP slate. There is a huge variation in the number of votes and the order of the votes for the SP votes.
” As far as the others… men are more likely to go to prison, spend more time in prison for the same crime, are more likely to be the victim of violent crime, more likely to be injured or killed on the job, less likely to go to college, and have a significantly shorter life expectancy. None of those, however, are worthy of fixing like that nickel difference. And that is why talk of “justice” and “privilege” is bullshit.”
Oh, all of those should be fixed. Of course, I suspect your fixes and mine might be very different. Fixing a poisonous culture will help with a lot of them, and help with that 2-dime difference. (At least according to the Wikipedia check. We could even split the difference and call it a dime.)
I’d also like to fix that women are much more likely to be the victim of domestic abuse, more likely to be denied a job/promotion because of their gender, etc., etc., and so forth. There are all sorts of problems. Let’s get to work.
“Seriously nasty emails are all you have, and the admission that much of that came from trolls stoking the fires. ”
While, of course, all anti-GG people are complicit in any behavior directed against GG, those who did/threatened/etc. terrible things from the GG side are trolls and not part of the real movement.
See a problem here? (Indeed, this gets back to the SP/RP divide, and the defense of JCW’s behavior)
“So anyone that doesn’t like the law is supposed to go destroying random people’s property because they’re mad?”
Considering that I’ve been at protests, that were quite peaceful until police behavior turned them violent, I think you’ll find there’s a middle ground between “nothing” and “riots”. Of course, it is often in the police’s interest to turn a peaceful protest into a riot, to justify their behavior — but then I suppose people are just supposed to take it when the police decide they’ve had enough and charge.
“but wrecking people’s lives because the evidence shows your boy charged a cop after trying to steal his gun is ok? ”
This is a case (presuming you’re talking Ferguson) where we can, if you want, go into details on the argument — but your views of it and mine differ radically, and I know which evidence I have seen that I believe.
“The Sad Puppies felt things are unjust, worked within the rules to change it, and you’re hammering them for it, and you then throw this line out?”
They used a tactic that many people felt was unfair and unjust, and reacted to it; or were we supposed to let you run rampant and do whatever you wanted, because some of you did it legally (and some of you didn’t.)?
I know that honest Sads feel mistreated because they get lumped in with the Rabids; unfortunately, unless you can think of one, how would you have punished the behavior of one, but not the other?
“I> am skeptical that “everyone” did that, especially given the relatively short time between slate announcement and nomination.
Do you realize that in that “relatively short time” Larry organized book bombs for all of the works available for sale and as a result sold thousands of copies of all of the works?
I read the entire Hugo packet (that I hadn’t already read) in about a week. The time between the SP3 initial announcement and the nominations closing was a couple of months. Pleanty of time to read the works (and many SP had already read a lot of them)”
I’m not arguing that no one read and nominated. I’m arguing that I doubt “everyone” did. Maybe 75% did. But that remaining N%, where N > 0, is still a problem.
” The analysis also shows that there were ~525-550 people who voted almost exactly the RP list. The SP vote is much harder to quantify by vote analysis as it was FAR less well defined than the 2500 person no-award slate or the 550 RP slate. There is a huge variation in the number of votes and the order of the votes for the SP votes.”
As I’ve said, but will say again slightly differently: The SPs got shafted by the RPs. And they can feel free to yell at the people who hijacked their movement for something else. However, the SPs aren’t blameless in all this, either, and acting as if they are won’t get much of anywhere.
All I’ve said, from the beginning, is that if Wright’s rhetoric gets a pass, then there is no call for an apology from anyone for what’s been said about the Puppies, as it’s been *milder* than what he used.
Show me ANYTHING that’s worse than neo-Nazi. ANYTHING.
Oh, all of those should be fixed. Of course, I suspect your fixes and mine might be very different. Fixing a poisonous culture will help with a lot of them, and help with that 2-dime difference. (At least according to the Wikipedia check. We could even split the difference and call it a dime.)
One of my favorite books is “How to Lie With Statistics”, which is more of a defense manual for spotting erroneous use of statistics than a how-to guide. There is a $.78 number in the debate, so it’s not a made up number, but it’s associated with an apples to oranges comparison (average wage of all men vs average wage of all women, basically, not taking any underlying differences into account). Because I’ve been trying to play this straight, I made sure I was using liberal-leaning sources for my statistics, like NPR and the Washington Post, and made sure the comparisons were apples to apples (unmarried men to unmarried women in the same profession, for example). Then again, this ties in to
This is a case (presuming you’re talking Ferguson) where we can, if you want, go into details on the argument — but your views of it and mine differ radically, and I know which evidence I have seen that I believe.
Considering that I’ve been at protests, that were quite peaceful until police behavior turned them violent, I think you’ll find there’s a middle ground between “nothing” and “riots”. Of course, it is often in the police’s interest to turn a peaceful protest into a riot, to justify their behavior — but then I suppose people are just supposed to take it when the police decide they’ve had enough and charge.
Another two of these things that comes out when we get into details. It’s surprising that despite attempts to portray yourself as a balanced voice of reason, we keep having these details that suggest that you’re a lot more into this politically than you’ve let on. What percentage of the American public attend protests? I bet it’s a lot less than 20%, even including the rare right-wing protests, much less protests that turn into fights with the police. Is it fair to characterize you as a liberal or a progressive? How would you describe yourself politically? (In the spirit of openness, I fluctuate between libertarian (more social policy) and conservative (more foreign policy), depending on the issue, but I live near Washington, so I understand the compromises and dealmaking necessary for real politics to work.)
While, of course, all anti-GG people are complicit in any behavior directed against GG, those who did/threatened/etc. terrible things from the GG side are trolls and not part of the real movement.
I can see which side disavowed and offered to help track down and prosecute any rogue elements which might be on their side. I can also see which side refused to do so, and in fact encouraged it (Arthur Chu’s ‘it’s be a shame if anyone called in a bomb threat’ right before someone called in a bomb threat.)
Show me ANYTHING that’s worse than neo-Nazi. ANYTHING.
“In the case of our modern society, we are at the tipping point where about half of our civilization has gone completely and utterly foam-at-the-mouth mad, and the sane half is slowly losing its ability to restrain them, as the reins restraining the beast slides through terror-pale, weakening and sweaty fingers.”
“In the case of our modern society, the paralytic belief voluntarily adopted by half of us — and I trust my readers know which half I mean — is what I call the Unreality Principle.
The Unreality Principle in a word is the principle that, in thought and speech and debate, falsehood is preferred to truth not despite its falsehood but because of its falsehood.
The Unreality Principle is a moral principle that states one ought to be loyal to untruth because it is untrue, and the more untrue it is, the less related to reality, the moral ferocious the loyalty should be.”
Or we could go into his citations about how the Left wish to destroy Civilization. “Leftism, briefly put, is antihumanity. It is barbarism. They hate Christ, they hate civilization, and most of all, they hate man.”
“I have no hatred in my heart for any man’s politics, policies, or faith, any more than I have hatred for termites; but once they start undermining my house where I live, it is time to exterminate them.”
I submit we are at least on a par with the Neo-nazi; Wright’s long-windedness is not a protection against the accusation, simply because he takes paragraphs to say what others do in sentences.
And that’s a man that the Sad Puppies chose to honor, including for his *non*-fiction, in which views similar to this, though a tad less extreme, (I do not have my Hugo packet to hand, or I’d give citations) are expressed.
Which means he’s part of the Sad Puppies, since you all read his work, and agreed that it was worthy of nomination.
As for the rest; frankly, I’d rather discuss SF (or even SF politics) than global politics, especially since we’re clearly so far apart on that issue in terms of basic views of fact that it’s not worth swapping citations back and forth. You’re not going to be convinced by mine, fairly clearly, and I suspect the reverse is also true.
And yes, I am of the Left. 🙂
“Leftism, briefly put, is antihumanity. It is barbarism. ”
Give that socialists of various flavors have racked up about a hundred million dead bodies over the last centuries, I fail to see the problem with this statement.
If a car design, or a medicine, or an electric blanket model, had failed repeatedly, causing even a tiny fraction of that many deaths, we would rightly insist that the design of that product undergo drastic changes, or at least extremely rigorous scrutiny, before allowing it to be used again.
Yet somehow you people always insist that socialism is going to work next time. It’s just been done wrong every other time. With the right people (i.e., you) at the helm it’s guaranteed to work.
We’re not buying.
“Fixing a poisonous culture will help with a lot of them”
I like this culture just fine, thanks, especially compared to the murdertopias you leftoids have produced every other time you’ve gained control.
Just so you know, Doctor, I’m not responding to your posts, because it’d be a waste of my time, since nothing I say is going to convince you, and I doubt you’ll convince anyone not on your side.
Have a nice life.
Just so you know, Black Oak Skull, I don’t give a shit whether you respond to my posts. I’m responding to yours because you are a liar, and I wouldn’t want a casual reader to be misinformed.
I guess it is kind of hard to argue with the evidence of a hundred million corpses, innit?
As for the rest; frankly, I’d rather discuss SF (or even SF politics) than global politics, especially since we’re clearly so far apart on that issue in terms of basic views of fact that it’s not worth swapping citations back and forth. You’re not going to be convinced by mine, fairly clearly, and I suspect the reverse is also true.
So it’s Vulcan ears back on, then? (A reference to Jon Stewart’s ‘clown nose on, clown nose off’ politicking.) You’re going to pretend that you’re only a Science Fiction fan with no political interest in the whole debate. And you’re expecting we’ll forget that you’ve given yourself away. But your fellow Social Justice advocates have politicized Science Fiction politics, and until that goes away, and as an advocate for one side of real world politics (and an advocate that didn’t make your affiliation clear), you can’t be trusted to be an honest debater on the subject.
You want to discuss books? Fine. There’s a good book recommendation thread up at Sarah Hoyt’s website, or we can discuss it here. As for the book I mentioned (The Disassociation of Haruhi Suzumiya), I don’t usually recommend translated Japanese light novels to anyone that’s not an anime fan, and in the case of this one in particular, my enjoyment is definitely colored by my knowledge of the work in multiple media, without which it might not have the same impact. I can recommend Rick Atkinson’s Liberation Trilogy (The Guns at Last Light, which I mentioned earlier is the third book. An Army at Dawn is the first) as a very well written history of American participation in Europe and Africa in the Second World War. Normally, I’m more interested in reading about less-covered subjects like the Soviet effort, but of the books written recently on the subject, Atkinson’s trilogy is the best I’ve seen.
@sschwartzoak on August 26, 2015 at 3:12 pm said:
> I’m not arguing that no one read and nominated. I’m arguing that I doubt “everyone” did. Maybe 75% did. But that remaining N%, where N > 0, is still a problem.
‘everyone’ is obviously some exaggeration, there is absolutely no way you can say anything about ‘everybody’ who voted other than the fact that they voted.
in any group larger than a dozen or so, there will be people who don’t do something. With the SP who had hundreds who voted (and more who didn’t) there are obviously going to be some who will do the wrong thing.
so you are correct in saying “not everyone did”, but it’s also a meaningless statement.
” But your fellow Social Justice advocates have politicized Science Fiction politics, and until that goes away, and as an advocate for one side of real world politics (and an advocate that didn’t make your affiliation clear), you can’t be trusted to be an honest debater on the subject.”
Like I said, though you appear to have missed — SF has always been political.
And I actually was trying to get beyond debate — that’s why I kept asking things like what SF you wanted, what you thought of EPH, what would make things work.
But if an SJW can’t be trusted to be honest, because they’re “politicizing SF”, then I guess Puppies can’t be trusted for the same reason, as they’re doing the same thing — the claim that they want “stories before message” amounts to “we don’t want your message, we want our message, because then we can enjoy the stories.”
And yes, I prefer to discuss books. I recommend the Hicks on the Wars of the Roses if you’re interested in the subject at all — it’s very clearly-written, and rather informative.
I am also looking forward to the next book on my “to read” pile — Mike Moorcock’s latest. Like his work?
@Davidelang
.
“In any group larger than a dozen or so, there will be people who don’t do something. With the SP who had hundreds who voted (and more who didn’t) there are obviously going to be some who will do the wrong thing.
so you are correct in saying “not everyone did”, but it’s also a meaningless statement.”
Except that everyone, in this discussion, keeps dealing in absolutes — “SJWs always lie” “All the Puppies slate-voted”, etc., etc., and so forth, and calling people out on that is the only way we’re going to get past the binary thinking and to anything workable — if there is anything workable to be found.
@sschwartzoak
if you can accept that these statements are close approximations rather than requiring 100% exactness, you have a chance of understanding what’s going on.
Vulcan ears off! You don’t want to discuss your politics, you want to discuss books, but first a hit on our politics.
Like I said, though you appear to have missed — SF has always been political.
There’s a difference between having a theme, even a political one, in a story and making politics override the story. Partly, it’s because anything worth being political about is unquestionably complicated, with both sides having valid points. “The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is another great truth.” Turning one side into a strawman you can score cheap points off of leads to both an unrealistic story and a stupid political argument. I disagree with the points Terry Pratchett makes in Small Gods on religion, but it’s obvious that there’s something to the arguments he makes.
But if an SJW can’t be trusted to be honest, because they’re “politicizing SF”, then I guess Puppies can’t be trusted for the same reason, as they’re doing the same thing — the claim that they want “stories before message” amounts to “we don’t want your message, we want our message, because then we can enjoy the stories.”
We obviously found a number of stories by liberal authors worth recommending, like Annie Bellet.. As has been pointed out, you can go and look at our “slate of recommendations” and see what we recommended. Furthermore, you came here. If you can’t trust us, why are you here?
Small note: one of the sucky things about “running” a radically egalitarian project like Sad Puppies, is you have no control over what flies out of the mouth of the guy standing next to you. Of course, the anti-Puppies had the same problem. Witness Ms. Gallo. I am sure TOR and Macmillan’s joint PR and legal departments really loved that week. Meanwhile, I had Lou and Mike Williamson and even myself; everyone had to watch everything (s)he said, because as I noted on my Emmanuel Goldstein post: politics means you will never, ever be given the benefit of the doubt. Ever. Some of us were less careful than others. And then there is Vox, the Dark Sith Lord of Total Badness, who floats away on his bundle of big red ballons, and could not give a fuck. And who made the Sad Puppies hate him worse than even the anti-Puppies hated him.
I happen to think Gallo’s thoughtless commentary was a double-whammy because she made it in the process of promoting a TOR work, and clearly did not anticipate that TOR readers or anyone other than “friendlies” would see it or react to it. Ditto for Feder and many other TOR employees. Their public conversations became places for people to pick over and point at, just as these blog conversations on my blog, Larry’s blog, Sarah’s blog, etc., all became buzzard yards for people to fly over until they saw something potentially juicy and exploitable.
But Brad! Haven’t you heard? We’re all Vox’s puppets! John ONeill of Black Gate even called Sad Puppies a two year campaign of vengeance by Vox! And we all know people like that can’t possibly be wrong about us. They say so themselves!
There’s a difference between having a theme, even a political one, in a story and making politics override the story.
Indeed; but as we’ve seen on more than one occasion, even in this dispute, one person’s “politics override the story” is another person’s “good story”.
Partly, it’s because anything worth being political about is unquestionably complicated, with both sides having valid points. “The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is another great truth.” Turning one side into a strawman you can score cheap points off of leads to both an unrealistic story and a stupid political argument.
Agreed; but see above.
I disagree with the points Terry Pratchett makes in Small Gods on religion, but it’s obvious that there’s something to the arguments he makes.
Thank ou — that’s the part where we can start discussing and looking towards the future.
Furthermore, you came here. If you can’t trust us, why are you here?
That’s why I began with “If…”, because I don’t think either statement — that neither you nor I can be trusted — is true. We may disagree, even deeply, on political matters, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t work on a framework together, for example.
But Brad! Haven’t you heard? We’re all Vox’s puppets! John ONeill of Black Gate even called Sad Puppies a two year campaign of vengeance by Vox! And we all know people like that can’t possibly be wrong about us. They say so themselves!
Yeah, why should I think for myself when the Puppy Kickers will tell me what I have to believe… O_o;;
sschwartzoak:
Sorry about the time I’m taking to reply, usually only on here once or twice a day.
“First: I don’t know if, for example, John C. Wright (member of the ELoE, and named consultant on the SP slate) counts as a Sad Puppy. Because people calling him homophobic weren’t lying, to pick but one example.”
Okay, that’s a fair point. I was mostly considering Larry, Saray Hoyt and Brad, who *were* lied about in such cases. Hell, one of the Guardian’s people tried to get his followers on Twitter to find racist things from Larry and came up empty-handed. Didn’t stop him pushing the “SP are only supporting white men” shite next time he posted.
To be honest, I was mainly thinking of the people who gleefuly painted Brad with the “racist etc” slander, then when he rebutted, had the gall to accuse him of using his family as a shield. I don’t think it can be disputed that those people definately owe him an apology.
“Second: Are you willing to have both sides condemn those who spread the lie that recent Hugo winners were “affirmative action” picks, chosen not because people liked them but because of who wrote them?”
Okay, How about both sides having to prove their claims, and apologising for those they cannot prove? Still means a vast majority of the “racist etc” claims need to be retracted, especially since they’ve been pushed since SP1 when they were undeniably bullshit.
Would also mean the people claiming “victory over fascism” have a lot of crow to eat.
“If not, then what you appear to be saying is “In order for there to be peace, you all need to admit you were wrong about us, while we remain right in all things.”
That was not my intention, and I am sorry it was interpreted as such. There was right and wrong on both sides – although significantly less vitriol from the Puppies side.
I’m sure we can agree that the “Larry Correia = domestic abuser” person still needs to come forward and apologise though.
That’s why I began with “If…”, because I don’t think either statement — that neither you nor I can be trusted — is true. We may disagree, even deeply, on political matters, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t work on a framework together, for example.
If you had said in your first comment here “I’m someone who disagrees with you politically, and I want to compare your point of view with my own to see if we have anything in common to build a framework around”, this thread would be very different, and a lot of people currently annoyed with you wouldn’t be.
In order to establish a framework for compromise, you have to understand what all sides want and why; what their interest in the issue at hand is. There may be an arrangement where both sides are satisfied, there will not be an arrangement where both sides get everything they want. Part of that requires assuming good faith of the people on the other side of the table, which is really hard to do when those people are being deceptive about their intentions.
One of difficulties in assuming good faith in others is that requires admitting that points of view that conflict with your own have merit, something that’s hard for anyone to do; I certainly have to struggle with it at times. It’s especially hard when your worldview is built around standing on a moral high ground, which is common to both Social Justice advocates and those that root their worldview in religious faith, like Mr. Wright.
@ Civilis He is a troll. On the other Hugo thread I called him out for only being interested in winning an argument and not truly wanting to find the truth or common ground. He did not deny this fact but instead tried to discredit me on technicalities. When I pointed out that
1.) the things he tried to discredit me with were not accurate and
2.) that his behavior proved my point, he disappeared from that thread.
He is not an honest broker. Her is not interested in doing anything but stirring the pot and trying to win an argument. He has no principals, he will attack Brad or any puppy supporter and claim to be outraged about the same behavior he defends when it is coming from his side.
For an example:
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/08/26/race-to-the-bottom/#comments
Summary:
Hugo award winning SJW author accuses ESL Sad Puppy author of using an ethnic slur.
Sad Puppy author goes “WTF?”
SJW author then looks up the word, goes into contortions trying to prove it is indeed an ethnic slur.
If you start with the assumption your opponent is racist, then have to work to manufacture evidence, you’re definitely doing things wrong.
He is not an honest broker. Her is not interested in doing anything but stirring the pot and trying to win an argument. He has no principals, he will attack Brad or any puppy supporter and claim to be outraged about the same behavior he defends when it is coming from his side.
I tend to prefer to be nice rather than mean; all that I’m spending is my time waiting for updates to install (and some of Brad’s comment space; sorry, Brad). If nothing else, if he/she is a troll, I’ve argued the Sad Puppy case with minimal vitriol and provided evidence of their trolling from their own admission, and a truly neutral observer can see it.
Besides, it’s good debating practice to get more of an idea what the other side thinks and wants. After the initial ‘I put facts together and discovered something’ cheer, I was disappointed that they were in fact a partisan political opponent and not a relatively political neutral Turefan actually concerned about the sanctity of the Hugos.
On Statistics:
North Carolina used to tout its Geography Majors made more money than any those Geography Majors that went to other schools. They had verifiable, mathematical proof of this.
Then one day, someone left out Michael Jordan’s NBA salary (He majored in Geography), and lo and behold, North Carolina Geography Majors were making about the same money as other schools Geography Majors.
I mention this only because it is the same sort of “Math” that was used in the 78 cents argument.
@ Dav Not to mention the statistic was originally put together something like 20 years ago and has been touted ever since as the same number.
As the old saying goes, “Figures never lie, but liars figure.”.
Dav,
There’s a lot of things to look out for. Health Care statistics often include a number of measures specifically designed to inflate the ratings of socialized medical systems, and we’ve all noticed that infant mortality rates are calculated very differently in a way that makes the US look bad.
One of the reasons I started seriously questioning Scalzi’s understanding of science (which should be important for a Science Fiction author) was his very faulty statistical usage. He, in effect, compared apples to non-apples and treated it as a meaningful statistic; “80% of the people like apples, and, on average, non-apples fruit are liked by 70% of people, therefore apples are the most popular fruit.”
The copy of How to Lie With Statistics I read in the 80s was published in the 50s, and was culturally an artifact of its time (“Harvard claims its graduates made, on average, $30,000 last year; here’s how they got such an impossibly high number”), yet it was still applicable, It taught me to do quick “does this make sense” checks when looking at statistics, and that skill has served me well.
Civilis, is How To Lie With Statistics only available as a relic paper volume, or can it be found in e-book form now?
Civilis, is How To Lie With Statistics only available as a relic paper volume, or can it be found in e-book form now?
I did a search and turned up:
Click to access How-to-Lie-With-Statistics-1954-Huff.pdf
This looks to be what I read. Now that I have the book (as it were) in front of me, the actual first statistic in the first chapter is “The average Yaleman, clase of ’24, makes $25,111 a year” and then goes into looking at it.
For more recent treatments, I recommend Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner. I read Think Like a Freak, the third book they’ve published, and they continue to be food for thought; I understand the criticisms, but the general methodology still seems sound.
Actually, Amazon lists a Kindle version.
I was a bit confused as to why a sixty year old statistics book had an e-book version, so I looked into it. According to Wikipedia, “In the 1960s and ’70s it became a standard textbook introduction to the subject of statistics for many college students. It has become one of the best-selling statistics books in history, with over one and a half million copies sold in the English-language edition. It has also been widely translated.“
@ civilis If you want to call it mean that is your prerogative. I am just stating what can be objectively be observed by his behavior. The crux of the argument comes down to he has his side and he is going to do and say what ever he can to try and justify his side. When that becomes obvious I don’t really think it is mean to point it out. It actually fits in very nicely with the point Brad was making in the prior post.
They will abandon everything they claim to believe and throw anyone under the bus just to make their point. None of them provided a cogent response on why it was the right thing to do to throw some deserving (female) editors under the bus. Their argument boiled down to “to prove my point” along with “you made me do it”.
If you want to call it mean that is your prerogative. I am just stating what can be objectively be observed by his behavior. The crux of the argument comes down to he has his side and he is going to do and say what ever he can to try and justify his side. When that becomes obvious I don’t really think it is mean to point it out. It actually fits in very nicely with the point Brad was making in the prior post.
There is a time for mean, and for you, now may be that time. I just don’t do mean well. I didn’t intend to imply you were doing anything wrong. If anything, we’ll do Good Cop, Bad Cop.
SJW’s always lie. What’s her name has decided that it’s very important, makes the world a better place apparently, if she publicly and loudly pretends that “Chicom” is an ethnic slur. What does she get out of that? What is the gain? How does this in any fashion promote any of the things that SJW’s say they care about? Fault can always be found. That’s easy-peasy. Meanwhile people with any military background are going, “Wha?” We can’t insult communism now? “Skim until offended,” is a way of lying. Sarah wasn’t insulting the author of TBP but was certainly insulting holier than thou American pro-commie moralists. SJW’s always lie.
Trying to control language as a method of in-group shaming and power acquisition and pretending it’s to make the world more inclusive place while demanding that our language be entirely scrubbed of any sort of recognition that the country of China exists? I sometimes think of what a white supremacist would do if they were *trying* to make things worse and it’s amazing how well it tracks SJW’s.
“SJW’s always lie.”
I will get to other things later (probably) but I came to realize something, seeing this again.
So long as this slogan pops up all the time, any claims to “civility” from the Puppy side are, to put it bluntly, nonsense.
It is trendy, now, to consider accusing someone of being racist worse than accusing them of being dishonorable scum. However, to many people, that’s not true.
And that’s what that little slogan does. It’s as if people started every post with “Remember, Puppies are all racist.”
Which I certainly have never seen.
But whenever I see “SJWs always lie”, I figure that the person saying that has already judged me, and that nothing I say is likely to get through to them — that, indeed, if I present facts, the *facts* I present will be tainted by their association with me.
Which, to put it mildly, puts a damper on any attempts to discuss anything — and makes it less likely by far I’ll believe anything you have to say, since if you’ve already written off people who disagree with you so vehemently, you’re probably well down the road to epistemic closure.
But whenever I see “SJWs always lie”, I figure that the person saying that has already judged me, and that nothing I say is likely to get through to them — that, indeed, if I present facts, the *facts* I present will be tainted by their association with me.
I agree that it’s not conductive to furthering a dialog, just as disemvowling, rewriting or scrubbing commenters that don’t toe the party line is a great way to only have an echo chamber.
The problem is that you aren’t the only Social Justice advocate that we have heard from (if you are, indeed, willing to accept being grouped with the Social Justice advocates, which you were cagey about when I asked you), and the others that we have heard from have generated a reputation, in part because Social Justice is by nature an ‘ends justify the means’ philosophy. Your reputation is tainted by your association with them. We don’t know you from Generic Social Justice Warrior 75126. It’s ironic, since we’re supposed to be the ones that shy away from Group Identity based decision making, but human nature is a powerful thing.
It’s also that it’s not always easy to distinguish between a deliberate lie, a restatement of inaccurate information which one does not know is inaccurate, a fact or facts which cannot be proven to be true, or a statement with multiple possible meanings, some of which may be true, false, or undetermined. We all need to learn to be willing to recognize when dealing with statements which can’t be independently verified or are otherwise ambiguous. It’s very tempting to say “sschwartzoak said something; I’ve seen evidence which would make that statement potentially untrue; therefore sschwartzoak is lying” when you genuinely believe the statement to be true.
Ultimately, people aren’t perfect. People that feel they’ve been pushed, tend to push back.
“that, indeed, if I present facts, the *facts* I present will be tainted by their association with me.”
The *facts* according to whom? Was Irene Gallo’s facebook post *Factual* in any way? Or did it swing to broad a brush perhaps?
Are Larry Correia’s numerous posts on how and why Sad Puppies started *Facts*? Brad’s posts on how the SP3 recommendation was put together fiction?
Was Briannas Wu’s assertion that the reason the Puppies dominated the nominations was because of GamerGate involvement based on *fact*?
There are always exceptions to rules, maybe you’re one of the few SJW who doesn’t lie?
Would it be a fact if I were to say “More than half of the people who voted no award did not read anything?”
Is it a fact that your supposed to judge a nominated work on how well it is written and how you feel about it, not how you feel about the writers personal beliefs, personal politics, or personal associations?
Slippery things these days, aren’t they?
“I agree that it’s not conductive to furthering a dialog, just as disemvowling, rewriting or scrubbing commenters that don’t toe the party line is a great way to only have an echo chamber.”
How shall we put this — I have been disemvoweled in the past, and I find it the *best* means of dealing with certain forms of commentary — because it does not deny the past, it just makes it a bit harder to decode :). But I very much agree in re: rewriting (see this blog) or scrubbing (and I have also been scrubbed)
“The problem is that you aren’t the only Social Justice advocate that we have heard from (if you are, indeed, willing to accept being grouped with the Social Justice advocates, which you were cagey about when I asked you), and the others that we have heard from have generated a reputation, in part because Social Justice is by nature an ‘ends justify the means’ philosophy.”
How shall we put this: I am going to be grouped in with them regardless, it seems; it happens, whether I identify with them or not. I am of the Left, though I hate Stalinist bureaucratization as much as the next person. 🙂
However, I am very much *not* an ‘ends justify the means’ person, nor are most of the people who, again, I think would fit that bill that I know; indeed, the amount of gnashing of hair and pulling of teeth about whether an action is OK or not would probably impress you.
(But this gets back to the visualization problem I think both sides have; it’s far too easy to portray the Other Guys, especially if you don’t talk to them, as being All The Terrible Things. For example, I don’t think most Puppies are particularly racist, especially not beyond the “unexamined” level — and there are more than a few on the Left who need to do a great deal of examining too.)
“We all need to learn to be willing to recognize when dealing with statements which can’t be independently verified or are otherwise ambiguous.”
I agree with you completely!
“Ultimately, people aren’t perfect. People that feel they’ve been pushed, tend to push back”
Which is why I keep trying to emphasize the “Let’s take a step back, regain our balance, and talk about the stuff we both agree (or at least I hope we do!) — SF/F” aspect of things. Because right now everybody with much skin in the game is wobbling around feeling pushed. Everyone is going to point to “They started it”, and since I’ve seen so many different starting points being mentioned, it’s pretty clear that we’ll never agree on a which “they” started it.
(As a side note: Yes, implying that LC was a wifebeater was the wrong thing to do, and whoever it was should be called on the carpet for it.)
(And I second your recommendation about How To Lie… — it’s an excellent book.)
Facts are things like quotes, hard numbers, etc.
I have had people tell me that I was lying because I observed that the RP slate had a much stronger effect on the final ballot than the SP slate — even though you can crunch the numbers and see.
“There are always exceptions to rules, maybe you’re one of the few SJW who doesn’t lie?”
Here’s the thing; if you expect people to be apologetic over calling Puppies “right-wing extremists to neo-nazis”, then you don’t get to make a broad-brush statement and expect people to go “Oh, they didn’t mean me, I’m not one of those lying people.”
“Would it be a fact if I were to say “More than half of the people who voted no award did not read anything?””
I don’t know — and I don’t see any way in which you could know either.
Is it a fact that your supposed to judge a nominated work on how well it is written and how you feel about it, not how you feel about the writers personal beliefs, personal politics, or personal associations?
No — that’s a strongly held opinion. 😉 I notice that you do not include, BTW, in your list “…or how they came to be on the ballot.”, which is the explanation given in every version I have seen of why those who chose to put No Award above all slate candidates did so.
Slippery things these days, aren’t they?
They always have been;
No — that’s a strongly held opinion. 😉 I notice that you do not include, BTW, in your list “…or how they came to be on the ballot.”, which is the explanation given in every version I have seen of why those who chose to put No Award above all slate candidates did so.
On the other hand, a lot of us have seen people saying that they’ll No Award anything recommended by anyone prominently on the right (especially common during Sad Puppies 1 and 2), or had experiences like the first commenters in this post ( http://therightgeek.blogspot.com/2015/08/challenging-comfortable-fictions-part.html ) where it becomes obvious that the person talking about Slates seems to be merely using that as an excuse to justify their own biases, possibly without realizing it. If you haven’t see “well, the Sad Puppy works are just bad”, you’re not paying attention.
Which is why I keep trying to emphasize the “Let’s take a step back, regain our balance, and talk about the stuff we both agree (or at least I hope we do!) — SF/F” aspect of things. Because right now everybody with much skin in the game is wobbling around feeling pushed. Everyone is going to point to “They started it”, and since I’ve seen so many different starting points being mentioned, it’s pretty clear that we’ll never agree on a which “they” started it.
I, at least, will agree that both sides stepping back would be a good thing. Do you understand why there’s a lot of reluctance to listen to said advice, especially coming from someone on the other side, whose co-belligerents are still engaged in actively attacking us? It comes off as more a surrender demand than a cease-fire offer.
Also, given that this is an explicitly political thread, perhaps it would be better to find a neutral forum to discuss non-political matters. Personally, I’m in this to partially try to understand what the other side thinks, so I like the back and forth debate.
“. If you haven’t see “well, the Sad Puppy works are just bad”, you’re not paying attention.”
But that is, whether you agree with it or not, “judging the works on how well they are written”.
“I, at least, will agree that both sides stepping back would be a good thing. Do you understand why there’s a lot of reluctance to listen to said advice, especially coming from someone on the other side, whose co-belligerents are still engaged in actively attacking us?”
Oh, I understand that it is very difficult to try and meet in the middle as shells fly overhead from every direction, yes.
” It comes off as more a surrender demand than a cease-fire offer.”
Here’s the thing, I think we all need to get; as with any time Fandom Has Gone To War, there will be bitter-enders on all sides; those who simply will *never* get past what has happened, no matter what. They can’t stop the fighting.
Only those flexible enough can do so, and that’s who I’m trying to find.
“Also, given that this is an explicitly political thread, perhaps it would be better to find a neutral forum to discuss non-political matters.”
Indeed, though finding “neutral” these days can be very difficult.
“Personally, I’m in this to partially try to understand what the other side thinks, so I like the back and forth debate.”
Well, I hope I’m giving you good material on what one of the other sides is thinking. (Yes, I’m making a definite stand on the “this is not a binary struggle” position. :))
But that is, whether you agree with it or not, “judging the works on how well they are written”.
But it’s also not voting against them just because the Sad Puppies made a list of recommendations. The ultimate question is one of bias. If I think Mary Robinette Kowal is an idiot, it’s obvious that I’m not going to regard her works favorably, and it’s likely that that’s going to affect my judgement regarding her work. It’s impossible to completely eliminate bias, so if she’s lower on my list of who should win, then that happens. The question comes in, should ‘I dislike the author’ be reasonable grounds to not just write off my judgment of their work, but actively work to deny them the award by using No Award? If the grounds we’re going on is “No Award someone for any reason you want”, then eventually only completely inoffensive people will be winning awards, especially if we’ve legitimatized recruiting people to vote for “No Award” slates. The award is for the Best Book, not for the Best Book by an Author Nobody Actually Hates.
Indeed, though finding “neutral” these days can be very difficult.
So why seek out enemy territory, and then, after stirring up the arguments, try to bring up non-political topics in a political thread, especially as one of the big bones of contention is the differing tastes of fans? At the very least, I suspect you’d get better recommendations from people that have similar tastes. I’ve learned that I get an awful lot of recommendations for books that I can’t finish from places which, for example, put politics ahead of enjoyment in a book. You’ve said that you didn’t like many of the books Brad recommended; why are you asking his commenters for recommendations?
It may just be that my ability to recommend books is very dependent on people sharing my common interests (military history, anime, games, etc.) I don’t like to blindly recommend books, and so have a hard time when people come to me looking for recommendations. The best I can do is to crowdsource my recommendations.
“No — that’s a strongly held opinion. 😉 I notice that you do not include, BTW, in your list “…or how they came to be on the ballot.
Well, I didn’t read or see any Hugo nominated works that were there illegally, did you?
Fact: It doesn’t matter how it came to be on the ballot. The nominating rules were followed. Works that didn’t follow the rules were removed, right?
Fact: You read it, you don’t like it, you vote accordingly.
Fact: Quite a few people who voted “No Award” did not read any thing. They simply voted no award. And saying “I voted No Award because I didn’t like how it was nominated” is a cop out. A childish one at best. But, given the other behaviors of the crowd expressing it, it fits.
You want to say SP3/RP3 broke some sort of unwritten rule/gentleman’s agreement, i’d point out that an unwritten rule takes into consideration a set of tacit assumptions agreed upon by all side, which was clearly not the place here. A Gentleman’s agreement presupposes both asides participating rely on their honor in order for it to be fulfilled.
Which side do you think broke that Gentleman’s agreement?
Dav
But it’s also not voting against them just because the Sad Puppies made a list of recommendations.
Indeed; some people (like me) read and then voted. Some people did not.
The ultimate question is one of bias. If I think Mary Robinette Kowal is an idiot, it’s obvious that I’m not going to regard her works favorably, and it’s likely that that’s going to affect my judgement regarding her work. It’s impossible to completely eliminate bias, so if she’s lower on my list of who should win, then that happens. The question comes in, should ‘I dislike the author’ be reasonable grounds to not just write off my judgment of their work, but actively work to deny them the award by using No Award?
No, and I would think you would agree with me there.
If the grounds we’re going on is “No Award someone for any reason you want”
But that’s not the grounds we’re going on. Or at least, that’s not the grounds anyone I’ve seen is going on — they’re going on one of two grounds: a) slated work got on the ballot illegitimately, and should not be rewarded, or b) if bad work gets on the ballot, it should not be rewarded.
My “No Awards” were largely based on b).
then eventually only completely inoffensive people will be winning awards, especially if we’ve legitimatized recruiting people to vote for “No Award” slates. The award is for the Best Book, not for the Best Book by an Author Nobody Actually Hates.
Actually, it would be “only people who are not so offensive that a significant minority, at least, of the people voting for Hugos in any given year”, since No Award has to win a head-to-head matchup with the item that got the most votes otherwise in order to be awarded.
I”So why seek out enemy territory, and then, after stirring up the arguments, try to bring up non-political topics in a political thread, especially as one of the big bones of contention is the differing tastes of fans?”
Because if I don’t seek out other people’s viewpoints, I’ll never get to figure out where they’re coming from.
I mean, I started out at file770, which seemed to be producing the most balanced coverage of the whole event, as it linked to primary sources on all sides.
“At the very least, I suspect you’d get better recommendations from people that have similar tastes.”
Better in the sense of “more likely to become one of my favorites”, sure; but better in terms of “OK, where are these people coming from?” Not so much.
“You’ve said that you didn’t like many of the books Brad recommended; why are you asking his commenters for recommendations?”
Because, a) as above I want to understand you, and want not only to understand *what* you’d recommend, but *why*., and b) because I’ve seen how varied the rec lists from other places get, so…
Well, I didn’t read or see any Hugo nominated works that were there illegally, did you?
That depends on how you define “illegally”. By the strictest definition of the rules, no. OTOH, the FAQ and all traditions around it suggest that nominating things you haven’t read is against the rules, and the man whose nominations *dominated* the ballot asked his followers to do exactly that, with significant evidence that they did — e.g. “Hey, how come the free webcomic we’re all supposed to have read and liked enough to nominate isn’t in our Hugo packet? How can we find it?”
So, yes, everything coming off (at the *least*) the RP slate was tainted.
Fact: It doesn’t matter how it came to be on the ballot. The nominating rules were followed. Works that didn’t follow the rules were removed, right?
See above. If you are going to be letter-of-the-law about “got on the ballot”, then you’re going to have to cope with the fact that letter-of-the-law allows “No Award” quite comfortably.
Fact: You read it, you don’t like it, you vote accordingly.
More a “guideline” than a fact.
Fact: Quite a few people who voted “No Award” did not read any thing. They simply voted no award
That appears to be a fact,
. And saying “I voted No Award because I didn’t like how it was nominated” is a cop out. A childish one at best. But, given the other behaviors of the crowd expressing it, it fits.
This part of your “fact” clearly isn’t one; it’s an opinion. And why is it a “Cop-out”? It’s expressing specific disapproval of a specific behavior; it’s an ethical stance, even if it’s not *your* ethical stance.
You want to say SP3/RP3 broke some sort of unwritten rule/gentleman’s agreement, i’d point out that an unwritten rule takes into consideration a set of tacit assumptions agreed upon by all side, which was clearly not the place here. A Gentleman’s agreement presupposes both asides participating rely on their honor in order for it to be fulfilled.
a) As always, there were more than “two” sides. Indeed, previous violators of said agreement were also punished for it, in *exactly* the same way — e.g. the Scientologists stuffing Hubbard onto the ballot.
Which side do you think broke that Gentleman’s agreement?
The one that went to explicit slating in order to stuff the ballot. You and your conscience can decide if SP was part of that — RP *certainly* was.
Next question?
“This part of your “fact” clearly isn’t one; it’s an opinion. And why is it a “Cop-out”? It’s expressing specific disapproval of a specific behavior; it’s an ethical stance, even if it’s not *your* ethical stance.”
Ethical? Really? The side that claimed Larry beat his wife, Brad used his wife and kid as a shield for his racism, that Peter Grant was a Nazi ,and those that supported anything Puppy related believed everything Vox Day said was gospel was making an “Ethical” stand?
Ethically, they should have made a good faith effort to read the nominated works.
Ethically, they should have judged those works on their merits when comparing them to the other nominated works in their respective category.
Ethically, they should not be judging what they read on the writers personal beliefs, political beliefs, or their own beliefs. You disagree with what Vox Day says? Great! How does his writing stack up against what else was nominated? I couldn’t stand to be in the same room as NK Jemsin, but I’ll read her work because I think shes a good story teller.
Thats whats your supposed to be doing, ethically speaking.
Because, ethically speaking, doing anything otherwise is fraud.
If a potential voter is incapable of doing those things, ethically speaking, they should not vote.
Then again, these are the same voters who words against Requires Hate, Sam Delaney, and Marion Zimmer Bradley come nowhere near the hysteria and volume written about SP3, so its fair to assume that their ethics aren’t so much defined as having a solid backbone, rather it resembles a Mobius strip they contort to fit the situation.
Ethical? Really? The side that claimed Larry beat his wife, Brad used his wife and kid as a shield for his racism, that Peter Grant was a Nazi ,and those that supported anything Puppy related believed everything Vox Day said was gospel was making an “Ethical” stand?
What I said was “No Awarding” things that made it onto the ballot dishonestly was an ethical position.
The rest of what you’ve said there is not relevant to the discussion we were having — throwing it in now i sjust muddying the waters.
Ethically, they should have made a good faith effort to read the nominated works.
Why, when the works weren’t nominated ethically?
Ethically, they should have judged those works on their merits when comparing them to the other nominated works in their respective category.
And many of us did; and compared them also to the works that those works had pushed off the ballot. And they were found, almost universally, wanting.
Ethically, they should not be judging what they read on the writers personal beliefs, political beliefs, or their own beliefs. You disagree with what Vox Day says? Great! How does his writing stack up against what else was nominated? I couldn’t stand to be in the same room as NK Jemsin, but I’ll read her work because I think shes a good story teller.
Indeed. And that’s what those who didn’t just “No Award” all Puppy nominations did. And helped, by and large, generate the results.
Because, ethically speaking, doing anything otherwise is fraud.
The same way going “If you respect me, vote exactly this slate” is fraud — and therefore the vast majority of the Puppy nominees were invalidly there.
If a potential voter is incapable of doing those things, ethically speaking, they should not vote.
1) See above — since the same is true of nominators.
2) Actually, the Hugo rules explicity endorse “No Award” also for categories the voter doesn’t think merit a Hugo –implying that there are other reasons for voting “No Award” that are acceptable.
Then again, these are the same voters who words against Requires Hate,
Given that a blog piece about RH *won* the Hugo this year, this is particularly risible.
Sam Delaney
That’s either Chip Delany, or Samuel R. Delany. And considering that he has done nothing wrong, save offering opinions that other people don’t like, this isn’t terribly surprising.
and Marion Zimmer Bradley come nowhere near the hysteria and volume written about SP3
Well, considering MZB is dead, and therefore not repeatedly making new blog posts complaining about how she’s being mistreated, this is also not surprising. The book is closed on her — by someone who, IIRC, was also Hugo-nominated for it.
so its fair to assume that their ethics aren’t so much defined as having a solid backbone, rather it resembles a Mobius strip they contort to fit the situation.
While you appear to view explicit calls to violate the rules from one side as fine, while viewing any type of response to that as unethical. You are not in a position to complain about anyone else’s ehtics.
Correction: Deirdre Saoirse Moen, who did much of the work on MZB, wasn’t nominated this year — eligible, but not nominated.
You keep saying they made it on “Dishonestly”
The SP voters didn’t cheat when they nominated. They didn’t defraud or deceive anyone. What did they do that was so dishonest? Then a couple hundred of them voted for some of the same things. Happens all the time. Hugo nomination voter numbers have always been low, so it only took a few more people voting the same way to get things done (IE, this is how Best Long form editor used to be won, when it took less than 50 votes to win).
“That’s either Chip Delany, or Samuel R. Delany. And considering that he has done nothing wrong, save offering opinions that other people don’t like, this isn’t terribly surprising.”
Replace Delaney with Vox Day in the above.
Compare outrage.
People were calling for OSC to have his Hugo rescinded when he was very much against gay marriage. Where are those same calls for Delaney and Bradley’s awards to be rescinded?
“Correction: Deirdre Saoirse Moen, who did much of the work on MZB, wasn’t nominated this year — eligible, but not nominated.”
If you were to exclude a Sp/RP vote, she wouldn’t have been nominated anyways. Which in and off itself speaks volumes about the state of Hugo nomination voter participation.
“You keep saying they made it on “Dishonestly”
The SP voters didn’t cheat when they nominated. They didn’t defraud or deceive anyone. What did they do that was so dishonest?
You’ll notice I repeatedly refer to the Rabid Puppies, or teh Puppies as a whole. If you’re angry with anyone viewing your choices as illegitimate, take it up with the Rabids, who deliberately flaunted the “read before you nominate” norm that you’re so staunchly defending for voting.
Hugo nomination voter numbers have always been low, so it only took a few more people voting the same way to get things done (IE, this is how Best Long form editor used to be won, when it took less than 50 votes to win).
And if they had just increased participation, instead of presenting a “vote for this!” slate, maybe they could have gotten what they wanted. But that’s not the choice that was taken.
“That’s either Chip Delany, or Samuel R. Delany. And considering that he has done nothing wrong, save offering opinions that other people don’t like, this isn’t terribly surprising.”
Replace Delaney with Vox Day in the above.
1) It’s Delany.
2) Let’s see; I don’t recall seeing Delany trying to game the Hugos, declare he wanted to see them burn, encouraging his followers to nominate strategically on his command, etc.
When you’re talking about the Hugos, that’s a big difference.
Oh, and Chip is a *vastly* better writer and editor than Beale has any hope of being. I didn’t have a membership in 2014, but I would have put Beale’s short fiction entry under “No Award”, as it would have been embarrassing to, say, Asimov’s to have published something of that quality.
People were calling for OSC to have his Hugo rescinded when he was very much against gay marriage. Where are those same calls for Delaney and Bradley’s awards to be rescinded?”
Citation required — I know people have boycotted him, but that’s not the same thing. You want to boycott Chip’s writing? Go ahead — very much your loss.
If you were to exclude a Sp/RP vote, she wouldn’t have been nominated anyways. Which in and off itself speaks volumes about the state of Hugo nomination voter participation.
Considering that had it not been for a withdrawal, the work about RH wouldn’t have been on the ballot, I fail to see that any Puppy, again, has moral high ground to complain on this issue. Indeed, if Deirdre’s work was so important, why didn’t any of the slates list it?
But that’s not the grounds we’re going on. Or at least, that’s not the grounds anyone I’ve seen is going on — they’re going on one of two grounds: a) slated work got on the ballot illegitimately, and should not be rewarded, or b) if bad work gets on the ballot, it should not be rewarded.
What you’re saying here, to me, is “I have a profound dislike for these people, but it’s absolutely not affecting my judgement regarding their works in any way, which is that the works suck.” You may believe that, but I find it highly unlikely to be really true. For an example of your bias: “Oh, and Chip is a *vastly* better writer and editor than Beale has any hope of being. I didn’t have a membership in 2014, but I would have put Beale’s short fiction entry under “No Award”, as it would have been embarrassing to, say, Asimov’s to have published something of that quality.”
See above. If you are going to be letter-of-the-law about “got on the ballot”, then you’re going to have to cope with the fact that letter-of-the-law allows “No Award” quite comfortably
If you think that thinking this way discourages slates and campaigns, you’re wrong. If one or both sides are going to ‘No Award’ em all, and let God sort them out the only way to get a win is to go as big and organized as possible.
As always, there were more than “two” sides. Indeed, previous violators of said agreement were also punished for it, in *exactly* the same way — e.g. the Scientologists stuffing Hubbard onto the ballot.
Except we have reason to believe this isn’t true, and evidence in the form of multiple authors, some (like GRRM) definitely not on our side, admitting that back-room dealmaking and win-trading has been going on for years in the smaller, less-voted categories, so some previous violators didn’t get punished, they got Hugo wins out of it. What we’re being sounds an awful lot like “it’s okay for the Sad Puppies to want to win Hugos as long as they only get a couple of token nominations, at most.”
I mean, I started out at file770, which seemed to be producing the most balanced coverage of the whole event, as it linked to primary sources on all sides.
There’s a reason people here have nicknamed File770 as Pravda770. The fact that you haven’t noticed that most of the Sad Puppy bloggers habitually link to primary sources from the other side is telling. I just read this one yesterday (https://theartsmechanical.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/the-real-problem-in-sff/).
What you’re saying here, to me, is “I have a profound dislike for these people, but it’s absolutely not affecting my judgement regarding their works in any way, which is that the works suck.” You may believe that, but I find it highly unlikely to be really true. For an example of your bias: “Oh, and Chip is a *vastly* better writer and editor than Beale has any hope of being. I didn’t have a membership in 2014, but I would have put Beale’s short fiction entry under “No Award”, as it would have been embarrassing to, say, Asimov’s to have published something of that quality.”
Ah — so once I’ve established that I don’t like a writer’s *work*, I should not vote “No Award” above them for a Hugo, lest I might be biased? That’s what I’m hearing from you.
There are people whose politics I disagree with *vehemently* whose works I love. There are people I have a strong personal dislike for whose quality is undeniable.
Ted Beale, on the evidence I’ve read of his work and his editing, isn’t one of them.
If you think that thinking this way discourages slates and campaigns, you’re wrong. If one or both sides are going to ‘No Award’ em all, and let God sort them out the only way to get a win is to go as big and organized as possible.
Well, a) this is why I’m championing EPH, in order to drastically diminish the effects of slates, and b) No one has ever doubted that “enough people” could wreck the award. The value of doing so, other than being able to point and gloat, is, to put it mildly, dubious.
(And, as I’ve said above, I don’t think one year of No Awards in 5 categories has “burned down” the Hugos, or those categories.)
Except we have reason to believe this isn’t true,
It certainly has been on the open level — and speculation about other levels has not been proven to be any more than speculation.
What we’re being sounds an awful lot like “it’s okay for the Sad Puppies to want to win Hugos as long as they only get a couple of token nominations, at most.”
Well, it is certainly true that there is, to many people, a significant difference between “One work getting on the ballot” and “swamping the ballot”. I suggest, again, you point your ire at the Rabid Puppies, who managed to undo any good you might have been doing with their slating-and-blind-voting.
There’s a reason people here have nicknamed File770 as Pravda770.
Indeed; this is why I made my comment in re: lack of “neutral” spaces. Especially since it linked to comments from both sides, especially at the beginning, with a minimum of commentary.
(And, following your link, it looks much more like a — dare I say it — recommended reading list for one side than an attempt to document both. Compare that to the most recent file770 post, which has, at most, one line of editorial “commentary”. And this is *after* it’s been described for months as being utterly anti-Puppy.)
Ah — so once I’ve established that I don’t like a writer’s *work*, I should not vote “No Award” above them for a Hugo, lest I might be biased? That’s what I’m hearing from you.
It’s a ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ problem. If everyone thinks like you do, no one wins the award.
(And, following your link, it looks much more like a — dare I say it — recommended reading list for one side than an attempt to document both. Compare that to the most recent file770 post, which has, at most, one line of editorial “commentary”. And this is *after* it’s been described for months as being utterly anti-Puppy.)
I just picked that one because it was linked in a couple places yesterday; the fact that it was so easy to find was the key. His article is biased, yes, but he goes out of his way to include a lot of links to the other side among the links at the bottom (Wired, NPR, the Guardian, Slate, IO9, LA Times, NY Times, Salon, File 770, Scalzi, Mary Robinette Kowal, Ann Leckie, and GRRM at minimum). If File770 seems the most balanced because they occasionally throw in selective quotes from some of the Sad Puppies that don’t make them look like horrible people, then you need to spend a lot of time looking at how bias is achieved.
Well, it is certainly true that there is, to many people, a significant difference between “One work getting on the ballot” and “swamping the ballot”. I suggest, again, you point your ire at the Rabid Puppies, who managed to undo any good you might have been doing with their slating-and-blind-voting.
Why? They were playing the game according to the rules as well. Yes, you’re going to repeat your trite “No Award is also according to the rules” and I haven’t disagreed with that. You haven’t said anything which persuades me that repeating Sad Puppies 3 with more recruiting and more pushback doesn’t give the Sad Puppies the best results for next year, even with another Rabid Puppies thrown into the mix.
It certainly has been on the open level — and speculation about other levels has not been proven to be any more than speculation.
If that’s your argument, that your side is perfect, then you’re wasting your time and mine.
Ah — so once I’ve established that I don’t like a writer’s *work*, I should not vote “No Award” above them for a Hugo, lest I might be biased? That’s what I’m hearing from you.
It’s a ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ problem. If everyone thinks like you do, no one wins the award.
I fail to see how thinking that one should read nominated works (and read works before you nominate), and that some writers are better than others, leads to “No one winning the award”.
You seem to think that because I dislike Beale, and dislike Beale’s writing, I should disqualify myself from “No Award”-ing him for the quality of his work.
I just picked that one because it was linked in a couple places yesterday; the fact that it was so easy to find was the key. His article is biased, yes, but he goes out of his way to include a lot of links to the other side among the links at the bottom (Wired, NPR, the Guardian, Slate, IO9, LA Times, NY Times, Salon, File 770, Scalzi, Mary Robinette Kowal, Ann Leckie, and GRRM at minimum). If File770 seems the most balanced because they occasionally throw in selective quotes from some of the Sad Puppies that don’t make them look like horrible people, then you need to spend a lot of time looking at how bias is achieved.
Considering that, during the daily puppy roundups, they were quoted regularly, and by no means in the most inflammatory means possible, I think “occasionally” and “selective” are matters, clearly, of interpretation.
So, is there anywhere you find “neutral”?
Well, it is certainly true that there is, to many people, a significant difference between “One work getting on the ballot” and “swamping the ballot”. I suggest, again, you point your ire at the Rabid Puppies, who managed to undo any good you might have been doing with their slating-and-blind-voting.
Why? They were playing the game according to the rules as well. Yes, you’re going to repeat your trite “No Award is also according to the rules” and I haven’t disagreed with that. You haven’t said anything which persuades me that repeating Sad Puppies 3 with more recruiting and more pushback doesn’t give the Sad Puppies the best results for next year, even with another Rabid Puppies thrown into the mix.
Actually, there’s significant evidence that many RPs did exactly as they were asked to do — nominated without reading. In which case, no, they didn’t play “according to the rules”.
And as for next year, what does SP actually *want*? Do you feel that this year was a success?
It certainly has been on the open level — and speculation about other levels has not been proven to be any more than speculation.
If that’s your argument, that your side is perfect, then you’re wasting your time and mine.”
First of all — any slating coming from the Left isn’t on “my side” — as I disapprove of the entire idea.
So, show me evidence of slating coming from the left, or from anywhere — real evidence, not “This book I think was bad won a Hugo” — e.g. Doc up there, or “This author I really like has never won a Hugo” — and I’ll oppose that effort as well.
Actually, there’s significant evidence that many RPs did exactly as they were asked to do — nominated without reading. In which case, no, they didn’t play “according to the rules”.
Simple. Show me what rule they violated and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, with evidence, that they did so. That’s the proof you’re demanding from me.
“Show me what rule they violated”
The rule repeatedly stated regarding reading works before nominating.
For evidence, look at the significant consistency of voting numbers for the RP slate, and its overwhelming success independent of any other slate. Now, add in the people, as I’ve said, who didn’t know that one of their own nominees was a free online webcomic — indicating they hadn’t read it.
Furthermore, look at the remarkably consistent number of people who voted for the RP hugos — including for 3BP, after Beale told them to do so.
That’s all evidence of voting not because of reading nominations, or candidates, but because of instruction.
That, I believe — combined with Mr. Beale’s admission — nay, proclamation — that that’s what he wanted to do — and I think you have enough evidence.
Confession, supported with evidence — work for you?
For evidence, look at the significant consistency of voting numbers for the RP slate, and its overwhelming success independent of any other slate. Now, add in the people, as I’ve said, who didn’t know that one of their own nominees was a free online webcomic — indicating they hadn’t read it.
You’ve provided no links to the rules, no links to what Mr. Beale said in his own words. In other words, no evidence, let alone proof.
You’ve provided no links to the rules, no links to what Mr. Beale said in his own words. In other words, no evidence, let alone proof.
Well, let’s see:
They are my recommendations for the 2015 nominations, and I encourage those who value my opinion on matters related to science fiction and fantasy to nominate them precisely as they are.
Vox, here: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/02/rabid-puppies-2015.html
Oh, and while we’re at it: Indeed, voting No Award across the board was my original intention,
from here: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/07/m-zed-votes-no.html
No, don’t nominate or vote for something you have not read or seen, and don’t vote based on reputation — the Hugos are meant to honor your choices and judgments, not the rumor of someone else’s.
From the Hugo FAQ, here: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/#Can I vote for something I have not read/seen?
There you go.
Like I said, if you want to direct ire, direct it at the people who borrowed your banner, irritated large numbers of people with the way they behaved while wearing it, and then brought down in part on your heads the reaction.
First, that’s a FAQ, not the official rules.
No, don’t nominate or vote for something you have not read or seen, and don’t vote based on reputation — the Hugos are meant to honor your choices and judgments, not the rumor of someone else’s.
Second, if it was the rules, those that No Awarded works they hadn’t read based on the Rabid Puppies reputation WERE in violation of the rules. In fact, you know this, which is why you mentioned Vox saying “Indeed, voting No Award across the board was my original intention“. If it’s against the rules for Vox, it’s against the rules for everyone.
Third, Vox’s quote says nothing about “not reading the works”, which is what the supposed violation is.
OK, Civilis — you win. I’m not going to try and persuade you any more, seeing how far down the rabbit-hole of skepticism and technicality you’re prepared to go in order to figure out some way, any way, to justify yourself.
That an FAQ put out by the Hugo administrators isn’t official enough for you is one thing. That you need Vox to come out and say “…but don’t read them!” when he explicitly says if you trust him, you’ll nominate exactly as he tells you — that’s pushing it into the realm of unreality.
Finally, as one last little technicality, if you look, it says don’t vote *for* something you haven’t read. If you’re going to split so many hairs, you can go “Well, they didn’t vote *for* it, they voted *against* it with No Award.”
That’s not a serious point, that last, but it illustrates the level of hairsplitting you’re willing to go to in order to defend Vox Day and the Rabid Puppies (thereby making all the claims of “We’re the Sads, not the Rabids” seem at best to be tactical tools, rather than honest expressions of belief) — and if you’re willing to go that far, there really isn’t much point in holding this discussion further — because, as you put it: “If that’s your argument, that your side is perfect, then you’re wasting your time and mine.”
So, since your argument is that no one on your side ever did anything wrong — even those people your alleged leaders tried to distance themselves from — I’ll stop wasting your time and mine.
OK, Civilis — you win. I’m not going to try and persuade you any more, seeing how far down the rabbit-hole of skepticism and technicality you’re prepared to go in order to figure out some way, any way, to justify yourself.
I’m only repeating your ‘skepticism’ back at you.
That an FAQ put out by the Hugo administrators isn’t official enough for you is one thing. That you need Vox to come out and say “…but don’t read them!” when he explicitly says if you trust him, you’ll nominate exactly as he tells you — that’s pushing it into the realm of unreality.
Likewise, your denial that any backroom dealmaking was going on, when the same winners kept winning over and over again and no one cared, even with insiders saying that it had been going on for years, convinced me that if you were going to demand proof, then I was as well.
That an FAQ put out by the Hugo administrators isn’t official enough for you is one thing. That you need Vox to come out and say “…but don’t read them!” when he explicitly says if you trust him, you’ll nominate exactly as he tells you — that’s pushing it into the realm of unreality.
You’re the one that started playing word games, and made the ‘Rules of the Hugos’ and their technicalities a point of contention. You said the Hugos said something was against the rules, you repeated it over and over again, and when I asked you to show me, you couldn’t. I choose to believe you didn’t lie to me and didn’t intentionally disbelieve me; you sincerely thought you knew what the rules were. I do auditing and pencil and paper RPGs; when someone says ‘the rules say to do X’, I have to say, ‘show me the rules’.
Likewise, you’ve set a rule here that you’re going to insist that your side is pure unless I can get you ironclad proof. I lose if I let you hold me to a higher standard, and I want to win. The applicability of this to the Hugo SJW vs Sad Puppy debate should be obvious. You come here saying you want a dialog, but you’re not willing to compromise anything, even merely assuming we are sincere in our arguments.
Finally, as one last little technicality, if you look, it says don’t vote *for* something you haven’t read. If you’re going to split so many hairs, you can go “Well, they didn’t vote *for* it, they voted *against* it with No Award.”
It also says, specifically, as a separate clause, “don’t vote based on reputation“, which was what “No Award” slate voting does.
So, since your argument is that no one on your side ever did anything wrong — even those people your alleged leaders tried to distance themselves from — I’ll stop wasting your time and mine.
On the contrary, unlike you, I admit that both sides are filled with flawed human beings. Until you can do that, you can’t achieve anything.
I thank you for sharing your opinions, and being more civil than most, but until you can put aside your biases and attempt to understand where others are coming from and why you’ll get the same response.
For an example of an analysis that, while I disagree with some of the conclusions, I believe accurately reflects both sides in the debate, see:
http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/08/30/guest-post-by-ken-burnside/#comments
Civilis, thanks for the link.