I Sing the Puppy Electric 4/29

George R.R. Martin, John Ringo, Vox Day, John Scalzi, Aaron Pound, Jeb Kinnison, Jamie Ford, Glenn Hauman and lots of other cool cats and hot dogs sound off in today’s roundup. (Title credit belongs to File 770 contributing editor of the day Brian Z.)

George R.R. Martin on Not A Blog

“No On NO AWARD” – April 29

No, I am not saying don’t use NO AWARD at all when you vote for this year’s Hugo Awards.

NO AWARD has been, and remains, a viable and legitimate option for the Hugo voter. I’ve been voting on the Hugos since the 1970s, and I use NO AWARD every year, usually in about a third of the categories. However, I have seldom (not NEVER, just seldom) placed it first. I rank the finalists that I think worthy of the rocket above NO AWARD, and the ones I think unworthy below it. That’s the way I intend to use the option this year as well, in spite of the slatemaking campaigns that buggered the nomination process to the seven hells and back.

NO AWARD is a scalpel, not a bludgeon. Voting NO AWARD on everything down the line… or even (the lesser option) on everything that appeared on either Puppy slate… well, I don’t think it is smart, I don’t think it is fair, and I know damned well that a NO AWARD sweep will kill the Hugos.

I think I have made my disagreements with Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen and the rest of the Sad Puppies abundantly clear in the many blog posts that preceded this one, and in my debates with Correia both here and on his MONSTER HUNTER NATION. And I think I have made my disgust with Vox Day and his Rabid Puppies clear as well. No one should be in any doubt as to where I stand on all this.

As much as I am opposed to what the Puppies did, and what they are trying to do, I am also opposed to Guilt by Association. Like it or not, the ballot is the ballot, and it is before it now, for each of us to deal with as he or she thinks best. For my part, that means it is now about the stories, the books, the work itself. Reading, thinking, weighing my choices… voting.

 

 

John Ringo on Facebook – April 28

[Originally a public post, it is now restricted, but a screencap of “Understanding SJW Logic” is hosted at Solarbird.net.]

So let’s drill this down to Science Fiction. Science Fiction has, historically, been something that looked to the future of technology and societies and tried to glean what might be possible. It has also, often, been an avenue for proposing change. Many of the most ‘misogynistic’ and ‘racists’ authors of the early SF years were, in fact, far FAR ahead of their time in proposing racial and gender equity or near equity.

To the Social Justice Warriors (their term and not one of derogation in their eyes) of SF fandom, the TRUE PURPOSE of Science Fiction is solely and ONLY such promotion. Let me repeat that as an axiom:

To the Social Justice Warriors of Science Fiction publishing and fandom, the true and only purpose of science fiction is to promote increased equity in the arena of social justice.

The purpose of science fiction is not to tell a good story. Most of what people call ‘good stories’ are not stories that promote social justice. So ‘good story’ or not good story, (and there we get to matters of taste) they are not good science fiction. Good science fiction is only that science fiction which promotes social justice.

If there is a choice between two good social justice stories, the choice is not based on which is the better story or which is better written. At that point you look at which promotes social justice better. So if Author A is a person of color or a transgenderist and Author B is a cis-male, even if he is a social justice warrior, the BETTER STORY is that which is written by the person of color or transgenderist UNLESS such person writes a story which does NOT promote social justice in which case they are a traitor and shall be treated as such.

The sole an only point is to view every work in a lens of ‘how does this promote social justice?

 

Font Folly

“It bothers some people that we exist, part 2” – April 29

Being reminded that queer people exist at all drives some people to crazy lengths. For instance, as noted at the Crime and the Forces of Evil blog, the Sad Puppies are angry that books containing queer characters aren’t clearly marked. For those not in the know, the Sad Puppies (and an allied group, the Rabid Puppies) are a bunch of arch-conservative sci fi writers and fans who organized a bloc-voting scheme to game the selection process for the Hugo Awards and put a specific slate of anti-progressive authors, editors, and fans in every major category. Their rhetoric leading up to their success was full of blatant misogynist and homophobic language (and threats), and only slightly-less-blatant racist language. It’s worth noting that they’ve been trying this for a few years without success. It appears that their success this year is primarily due to the fact that they managed to enlist a bunch of GamerGate trolls into the process…

Since succeeding in hijacking most of the Hugo Ballot, the Sad Puppies (that’s their own name for their movement, by the way) have started deleting or heavily editing their existing blog posts and such to downplay the bigotry. Though most of their revisions have been to obscure the racist language, to try to pretend that the most blatant bigot wasn’t considered an ally, and to make some of their threatening language appear to be aimed at individuals rather than whole groups of people. They have removed some of the comments and paragraphs in which they appear to be calling for the extermination of gay people, for instance, though they remain absolutely clear that they object to homos and women being portrayed positively (or at all) in science fiction, fantasy, or any other cultural product.

 

Vox Day on Vox Popoli

“THEY are in retreat” – April 29

The main reason SJWs were successful in infiltrating the science fiction establishment and imposing their ideology on it was due to their Fabian strategy of denying any conflict was taking place. Their entryism depended entirely upon stealth and plausible deniability. That’s why the single most important aspect of both #GamerGate and #SadPuppies was the way in which it was made perfectly clear to everyone that there are, in fact, two sides.

There are those who want to be able to define what is permissible to read, write, design, develop, play, think, and say, (SJWs) and those who wish to read, write, design, develop, play, think, and say whatever the hell they happen to please. (Everybody else)

Jim Hines isn’t “so damn tired” of “an artificial Us vs. Them framework”. He is simply alarmed that their most effective tactic has been exposed and rendered impotent.

 

John Ringo on Facebook – April 29

Because as a conservative, that’s what you are to all the hardcore liberals. Purest evil. ISIS has nothing on being an American conservative. There is nothing worse than being a conservative white male. We are the ultimate super-villain and nothing can be anything like our equal. (Thus the humorously entitled ‘League of Evil Evil’ started by Sarah Hoyt of which I am a card-carrying member.)

Which is why there have arisen conventions that really avoid letting the CHORFs in at all. So the conservative SF fans can get together and let their hair down and talk about stuff they want to talk about (like books with actual plots and dialogue) and not be continuously insulted by the CHORFs. And even large cons that are ‘balanced’ tend to toss the SJW contingent the minute it starts to be a problem. Because nobody CARES about their issues. Not in the broad sense of what is marketable. (Just as at ‘balanced’ conventions conservatives who insist on being buttheads are tossed. I’ve seen both and I’m all for it. When it’s balanced.)

By the way, I prefer SJBs to CHORFs as a term. SJWs, social justice warriors, is not an insult as many articles have indicated. It’s the preferred term of the SJWs. And there are SJWs who are not SJBs. An SJB is a ‘Social Justice Bully.’ Because they are bullies. They are not even about social justice. They’re about being bullies.

So, yes, there are two different fandoms. And it’s very much a Political divide. And it’s not going away any time soon.

 

John Scalzi on Whatever

“Drinking Poison and Expecting the Other Person to Die” – April 29

This whole Puppy mess is because some of them weren’t happy, and were searching externally for that happiness, either by seeking a validation in outside rewards, or by punishing people they saw (erroneously and/or conspiratorially) blocking the path to that validation. Envy and revenge, basically. They’re drinking poison and hoping others die, or at the very least, suffer. It’s why they called themselves “Sad Puppies” in the first place: it was about what they thought their Hugo nominations would make people they decided they didn’t like feel.

Which is their karma. It doesn’t have to be mine (or yours).

So, no. I wish the Puppies success in their publishing endeavors, and I wish them happiness — genuine happiness, not contingent on comparison to, or the suffering of, others. I also wish for them the capacity to recognize success, and to be happy. It doesn’t seem they’re there yet. I hope they get there, and will cheer them if and when they do.

 

Jeb Kinnison on According To Hoyt

“’Selective Outrage’ – Jeb Kinnison” – April 29

Hatred and prejudice harm real people, but the harm echoes on through the generations as the original victims teach and promote an us-vs-them worldview that harms everyone. The people who are less wrong learn to understand where the hateful emotions come from, and start to cut off the sources of funds and fury that feed the continuing conflicts. Understanding the backgrounds of the partisans and arguing toward acceptance of others’ right to be wrong is the beginning of reconciliation and cooperation. I think we can get most reasonable people to agree that an award that supposedly recognizes the best SFF should be more broadly representative of the readers, including the vast majority who can’t take time out from busy lives or afford to go to conventions. Having a tiny in-group select award winners from their friends and people they know leaves out most of the writers, and almost all of the readers.

 

Aaron Pound on Dreaming About Other Worlds

“2015 Prometheus Award Nominees” – April 29

The interesting thing about the 2015 list of nominees for the Prometheus Award is not who is on it, but rather who is not. Even though the set of authors that make up the core proponents of the “Sad Puppies” very clearly view themselves as being on the libertarian side of the spectrum (and in some cases they have inserted segments into their books that are clearly pandering to Prometheus Award voters), and yet, there is zero overlap between the set of books they promoted for the 2015 Hugo Award and the set of books that were chosen as finalists for the 2015 Prometheus Award. In short, despite sharing an ideological bent with many of the authors promoted by the Puppies, the Libertarian Futurist Society didn’t see fit to even consider honoring any of the novels that were pushed for the Hugo ballot with a Prometheus Award nomination. If the Puppy slate is in fact about recognizing good books that the Hugo Awards have overlooked because they are supposedly ideologically biased, why is it that the works on the Puppy slates have been, with some rare exceptions, pretty much ignored by all of the other genre related awards? In fact, no one making decisions regarding other awards has seemed to think the stories promoted by any iteration of the Puppy slates have been worth nominating. It would be one thing if the works favored by the Puppies were getting nominated for many other awards while being snubbed solely by the Hugo voters. But they haven’t. They have been ignored by all the major awards because they simply aren’t good enough.

 

John C. Wright

“After Inaction Report from Ravencon” – April 29

A read[er] with the unexpectedly commonplace yet giant-killing name of Jack writes and asks:

Mr Wright: no word on Ravencon? maybe I missed it. Were you barbequed on sight, or just smugly ignored? Or, was it really civilized? At this point I would imagine many of the detractors on the left are wary of confrontation with those of the Puppy and Ilk fame. If so, good. They need a nice dose of apprehension to temper their attack dog tendencies of attack, attack, then worry about truth and accuracy.

I am pleased to report that there were no incidents of which I was aware at Ravencon. Everything went swimmingly.

No, that is not quite true: I heard from one of the organizers, a friend of mine, that Brianna Wu sat on a panel on Gamergate on Friday (before I arrived), and asked for there to be no photographs. As far as I know, this is a perfectly reasonable request, and, as a matter of professional courtesy, it is usually honored. One fellow — I did not catch his name — took photos nonetheless, Brianna Wu raised an objection (whether reasonable or hysterical I cannot say, hearing of this only third hand) and the photographer was asked to step out of the room. He was not kicked out of the Con. He left a snarky comment on his social media page.

That makes a grand total of one almost-rude incident and one perhaps-illtempered comment. And it was not related to Sad Puppies as far as I know, merely the psychodrama of a seriously disturbed person.

Aside from that, the topic came up only once, at the Trollhunter 101 panel, where the moderator merely described that the controversy existed, but his description of the controversy was fair and free from libel, so he was on our side (whether he knows it or not).

 

 

Jamie Ford

“A bystander’s view of the Hugo Awards” – April 29

I joined the World Science Fiction Society so I could officially vote in the Hugo Awards. Not for myself (I don’t even pretend to that kind of greatness) but I had hoped to vote for The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin.

Much to my chagrin, this amazing book didn’t make the ballot because a disgruntled group of conservative writers who felt slighted by the Hugos decided to emotionally vomit all over the voting process.

It’s much more nuanced I’m sure, but to an outsider, that’s what it looks like.

*Tantrum. Barf. Point fingers of blame.*

And I get it. I love Orson Scott Card’s work and have always found him incredibly supportive of struggling writers. But I disagree with his political views, which have begun to obfuscate his stories. And I’ve participated in online writing communities where people were banned for unpopular opinions, which never sat well with me.

 

Doctor Science on Obsidian Wings

“The Varieties of Fictional Pleasure” – April 28

One much-discussed Puppy statement is by Brad Torgersen, from January:

In other words, while the big consumer world is at the theater gobbling up the latest Avengers movie, “fandom” is giving “science fiction’s most prestigious award” to stories and books that bore the crap out of the people at the theater: books and stories long on “literary” elements (for all definitions of “literary” that entail: what college hairshirts are fawning over this decade) while being entirely too short on the very elements that made Science Fiction and Fantasy exciting and fun in the first place!

Among the many problems with this statement is that Worldcon members (that Hugo-voting “fandom” of which Torgersen speaks so sneeringly) did in fact give a Hugo to The Avengers, in the same year they gave the Best Novel Hugo to John Scalzi’s Redshirts — a work which, Scalzi admits, can only be called “long on literary elements” if you’re making a joke.

 

Glenn Hauman on Comic Mix

“Hugo Awards, No Awards and Network Effects” – April 29

[The] question has come up about voting for “No Award” over various nominees, whether it should be done, and whether it would be an unprecedented event.

The answer to the last part is: No, it’s not unprecedented. “No Award” has won categories before, most recently in 1977 when no award was given for Best Dramatic Presentation.

And ironically, that’s really a shame. Because it turns out there was a really great science fiction movie that year that showed us where we were heading. I’m not talking about any of that year’s actual Hugo nominees– Carrie, Logan’s Run, The Man Who Fell to Earth, or Futureworld.

No, I’m talking about Network.

 

Vox Day on Vox Popoli

“They also serve” – April 29

It was suggested that they also serve, who inadvertently and unknowingly do the bidding of the Evil Legion of Evil through their ludicrously predictable reactions. And lo, a badge for this brigade of Unwitting Minions was created. Evil Legion of Evil minions are free to award it to those whose behavior is so egregiously stupid or shortsighted or self-destructive that they could not possibly serve your Supreme Dark Lord better if they were consciously doing His Evil Bidding. Given that they are, without exception, unique and special snowflakes, they naturally all bear the title “Minion #1”.

Unwitting-Minion_512x512

Stilicho in a comment on Vox Popoli April 29

Shouldn’t there be some more formal methodology to award Unwitting Minion badges?

No. I am Vile Faceless Minion and so can you.

 

Fiona L. Woods on Cats and Crime

“Hugo Awards and Puppygate” – April 28

Puppygate is a term George R.R. Martin came up with. There are two groups, one called the Sad Puppies and the other the Rabid Puppies. Each group encouraged their followers to buy memberships for Worldcon so they could vote for stories and novels they wanted to get nominated for the Hugo Awards. Apparently, some of those nominated feel the two groups succeeded in loading the nominations with their picks. Hugo Award nominees Mark Kloos and Annie Bellet have withdrawn their work from the competition.

Panzer says, “What do you expect? They’re not the smartest potato on the truck. They’re puppies. You want smart? Get a kitten.  No kitten would have anything to do with this kind of litter box game.”

 

William Reichard

“My God, it’s full of puppies” – April 29

Even the roundups of news about the Hugo Awards fracas are getting too long to read all of every day. One thing you have to admit: this topic is clearly a deep nerve.

 

 

332 thoughts on “I Sing the Puppy Electric 4/29

  1. Speaking as a pudgy, failed dweeb with no literary talent who is arguing against the Puppies myself, can I ask you not to throw verbal grenades without aiming them? Some of us resemble that remark.

  2. @Daveon,

    “The data isn’t hidden, people have always been free to go and examine it to look for ‘proof’ of secret manipulations or the effect of lists like NESFA and others – but apparently its much easier not to.”

    You know, I pointed out what I thought was an interesting if a bit dated statistic if you want to be an ass and imply I haven’t looked at any data that’s up to you.

    BTW, since I _am_ looking at all of the data what on earth happened in 2009 that caused the nomination spike?

  3. NelC – are you claiming to be a member of a master race?

    If so, the grenade hit its target rather satisfactorily.

  4. @Daveon,

    “assuming that fan interests are fairly normally distributed, which looking at the nomination lists over the last few years they seem to be, that is _exactly_ what we’d expect to see.

    This year that is not the case suggesting that something has gone very wrong with the nomination process”

    That assumption is where the error appears. It assumes that the voting members of WorldCon were an accurate sampling of SF fandom. Given that it is not unusual for novel to get under 200 votes this is obviously not true. What he is seeing is people he does not agree with voting. This is an entirely different thing.

    @Coelcanth,

    “So you publish his address so your minions can send him death threats? You’re all class”

    Um…just wow. If you are accusing me of sending death threats let’s make it pretty clear. In fact, _do_ file charges so that I can fire back. Until you do stop being stupid.

    @Nigel,

    “This is… stupid. What on earth must you make of all the war imagery being used by the RP/SPs?”

    Note you are all jumping on Coelcanth right? Nope? Also note we are stating that his imagery is _not_ a death threat but _is_ a call for false reviews. So Coelanth calls for something stupid, absolute silence, we say that something should be read non-literally , we believe he is issuing death threats. Nice.

    @Alex,

    “So now we have talking in the third person, ridiculous statements, and admission to publishing the address of someone and asking for people to harass her. All because of a single Amazon review he didn’t like.”

    This is like watching a game of telephone on speed. One poster makes an absurd claim that Vox is going to do something and it is followed up by an “admission” that he doxxed her without evidence…

    “You know I’m really not surprised that people who don’t understand subtext and sarcasm think that Theodore Beale is a great writer.”

    My head is hurting. ONCE MORE: We said that the later (the death threat) was not true but the “subtext” (down votes) was true. Yet we don’t understand subtext…

    @Nigel,
    “You realise this is a lie because he didn’t say that at all? Because we’re talking about lying. It’s right there, what he said, and it wasn’t that. You may disagree that lockstep slate voting didn’t block out the ballot – in which case I don’t know why SP/RPs are declaring victory – but you should explain why rather than lie about what he said.”

    Its amazing the nuance of meaning you will give to your side on, say posting false reviews, an then when the other side shows actual variance of behavior then that is proof of lockstep voting. Show me a year that was statically worse than this year as far as lack of variance. I’d be interested in knowing. At least in best novel this has been a good year for variance amongst the top five.

    @Daveon,

    “Mtroyd – you have NEVER had one of your nominations get onto the ballot? In how long? My hit rate is rarely better than 1 or 2, but it’s never 0 in novels.”

    I hope you think that through. Yes, some of us have never had what we expected on the ballot in the last fifteen years or so.

    @brightlance,

    “I’ve seen one detailed review, from Alexandra Erin, who remarks that real reviews are such fun, why would anyone fake one?
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/review/R1YNRFN9NQ0JK5/&ASIN=1935929828

    Sigh. You do know the difference between a negative _real_ review and a negative _fake_ review right? One is legitimate, as this one obviously is, the other is not. I may disagree with her but she obviously read the book and put some thought into it. But no, this minion must doxx and burn her…because something or another.

    @rcade,

    “You didn’t just vote. You voted for a bloc like a sheep, setting aside your own preferences in favor of Day’s so you could stick it to your imaginary enemies.”

    YOU ARE SHEEP AND VOTED AS YOUR MASTER SAID

    Except we didn’t. As the statistics show…so. You are bent that you didn’t get the nominations you wanted. Welcome to democracy.

    @Mike,

    So honest question, how is:
    “I see the usual sock-puppets have magically reappeared to defend their master’s voice and are babbling away in the same old, verbose, semi-literate, dishonest VD style.”

    Not violating your rules. Evidently we can’t think and have Vox’s hand stuck up our rear. Have we really been semi-literate?

    @Morzer,

    “Because, of course, books always remain exactly where they are sent and no-one ever loaned a friend a book!”

    It is odd when they lend them and then burn the ebook.

    @rcade,

    Dear reader please compare:
    “I normally see around 2-6 of my choices there. This year, there were 0.”
    with
    “I don’t care if I see 0 choices on the ballot if the process is fair and voters are acting as individuals instead of sheep.”

    When we vote for stuff we like we are sheep. And rcade of course does not care one way or the other. Except when we are sheep. Which means voting for things rcade does not like so that rcade sees zero of his choices. This automatically makes us cheap because.

  5. @Mozer,
    “NelC – are you claiming to be a member of a master race?

    If so, the grenade hit its target rather satisfactorily.”

    Ok, I’m pretty sure __that__ is waaaaaaay out of bounds.

    It is absolutely stunning how you all tend to hit your own side when there is the least misstep. Again, to the neutrals, these are not the folks you want as friends.

  6. “@Coelcanth”

    Reading comprehension is your friend, GK. Please note I was addressing VD.

  7. “Except we didn’t.”

    There are 150-200 Puppies voters. The only way you fill the entire ballot is by being sheep.

  8. “We hadn’t sent a single book to that state.”

    A state of five million people, with a vibrant and busy science fiction community, and you couldn’t move a single one?

    Wow.

    Well, now I see why you tout blog traffic instead of book sales as evidence of how popular you are.

    Perhaps you should send out review copies.

  9. I’ll second Coelacanth. I was directly addressing Theodore Beale’s comments. The ones where he talks in third person and admits he doxxed a person because “we didn’t ship a book to that state!”. I have a hard time believing you, GK, understand subtext if you can’t even understand text.

  10. GK Chesterton: “BTW, since I _am_ looking at all of the data what on earth happened in 2009 that caused the nomination spike?”

    It’s not a spike, it’s the start of an upward trend which has continued through last year.

    yearly nominations from 2008 – 2014:
    483 – 639 – 864 – 1006 – 1101 – 1113 – 1595

    As to what started the trend, possibly better promotion of the nomination process. Kevin Standlee may have some ideas about why this has occurred.

  11. Reading comprehension not being a strong suit, you should note that he was referring to the fact that NeIC wasn’t claiming to be part of a master race such as his initial post mentioned. The ‘grenade hit’ could only be construed as an insult if NeIC was claiming to be a member of such. He wasn’t, so….

  12. “I was directly addressing Theodore Beale’s comments. The ones where he talks in third person and admits he doxxed a person”

    But he didn’t? Reading comprehension.

    @Alex,

    And it really didn’t burn. Note Glen is not denying the review, or if it is real, he’s throwing smoke. It is a good book but one that is advertised as religious fiction and that tends to sell very poorly (even the religious tend to be hard on religious fiction). So no. Not much of a burn really at all.

  13. “It is odd when they lend them and then burn the ebook.”

    Clearly you missed the big news of the last decade or so. They have these magical things called mobile devices, some of which even allow you to read … why yes.. ebooks! Sometimes, people even travel with them. Sometimes, they even cross state lines. Sometimes they even take them on these magical metal flying birds called airplanes!

    It seems the sock-puppettes are technologically illiterate as well. Mind you, what else can you expect when their leader is best known for designing a mouse perfectly adapted to the vast market demographic of people with 30 fingers?

  14. @Morzer,

    I said eBook right? Are you reading at all? How would I be unaware of what I referenced? How does one burn an eBook?

  15. @VDChesterton

    “How would I be unaware of what I referenced?”

    Judging by your posts so far, it’s one of the more consistent features of your existence.

  16. GK. Since you have problems with referencing things, let me show you the whole quote.

    By the way: one of the reasons why I wouldn’t call for fake reviews on Mr. Beale’s works is because he has a distressing tendency to publish on his blog the addresses of people he thinks have given him fake reviews.

    He didn’t think. He knew for an absolute fact. We hadn’t sent a single book to that state. ”

    Italics are what he was responding to. “He didn’t think. He knew for an absolute fact” are where he talks in the third person, referring to himself as “he”. Notice also he is correcting the think. So in Beale’s mind the sentence should read.

    … Mr. Beale’s works is because he has a distressing tendency to publish on his blog the addresses of people he knows have given him fake reviews.

    So, yes, Beale talked in the third person and admitted to doxxing someone on his blog, with the only defense of “we hadn’t sent a single book to that state.”

    Hopefully you can comprehend that.

  17. My point is really that there’s plenty to pin on Puppies and wannabe uberhunden without having to get tacky with the personal remarks (fairly unprovable anyway, unless you have their Facebook photos open in front of you and are willing to share).

    The logical fallacies and subtle-as-a-brickbat rhetoric, not to mention empathic failures, are quite enough, and apply even to the ones who work out every day, Travis Bickle-style, inbetween posting the aforementioned screeds.

  18. “I’m proud to vote as an individual for the works I liked best. I’ll keep doing that even if the sheep keep following their shepherd.”

    Well done, rcade!

    You are head and shoulders above your flock.

  19. @NelC

    Basic logic:

    All x are y does not imply all y are x.

    All cats are grey does not imply all grey things are cats.

  20. “If p implies not-q and q implies not-p, then the counter-implicative form of the proposition…”

    OWTTE.

    Wasn’t there already a reference to Yngvi in an earlier thread?

  21. GK: I was assuming you’d actually go back and look at the actual nominations by year and in each category and use your critical reasoning skills to reach logical conclusions.

    Silly me I suppose.

  22. If only we could, say cross correlate the Higo Award nominations with other awards given each year and see if there is any commonality between them.

    If only such awards existed eh?

    Seriously. The more you guys protest the sadder it really sounds.

  23. The 2014 ‘spike’ was down to one of the largest Worldcons since the 80s wasn’t it?

  24. I would like to assert at this time that I am *not* a Social Justice Warrior. But since SJWs always lie, you know that I actually am one.

    Also, I assert that VD is *not* actually a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. But since we always lie, you know that the reverse true. Or perhaps you have already worked this out for yourself.

  25. Daveon: “The 2014 ‘spike’ was down to one of the largest Worldcons since the 80s wasn’t it?”

    It’s not really a spike, though, it’s just a continuation of the trend — even if you generously assume 300 Puppies nominated this year, then the 1,822 remaining total for 2015 is still well above the 1,595 total for 2014 — and Sasquan’s membership is only 8,016 right now (Loncon’s total was 10,833).

    I think the upward trend is due to 1) increasing awareness 2) ease of nominating online.

  26. JJ:

    As to what started the trend, possibly better promotion of the nomination process. Kevin Standlee may have some ideas about why this has occurred.

    Well, one thing that may have had some impact was that the group currently known as the Hugo Awards Marketing Committee was created as the result of a resolution passed in 2006, and the Hugo Awards web site launched the following year, on August 10, 2007 to be precise. I wouldn’t want the HAMC/THA.org effort to be considered the only reason; obviously, individual Worldcons had to buy in to the idea of promoting the Hugo Awards as well, and HAMC only assists in the process. It’s been an incremental process.

    One of the few bright sides of Puppygate is that it has brought the Hugo Awards publicity that we could never have bought. (Traffic on the web site is still running 2-3x historical average, making me terribly relieved that we changed to a more robust hosting company last month just before the finalist announcement.) I do not believe for a moment that the Puppies intended this as a real goal, although I also do not doubt that they will want to take credit for it.

  27. Kevin, I’m fairly sure Vox will be along shortly to explain why this means “Victory, VICTORY!” is his.

  28. Kevin Standlee — “I do not believe for a moment that the Puppies intended this as a real goal, although I also do not doubt that they will want to take credit for it.”

    I’m fairly sure that VD has already claimed this in one of these threads. But he says a lot of things.

  29. I believe that including walkins Loncon ended up around 11k or so.

    By this stage they had over 5000 attending members.

    It will be interesting to see the way this plays out. Not to mention the fact voting works differently to nomination.

  30. @John Layton on April 30, 2015 at 10:53 am

    So perhaps it’s better that people vote their own preferences, given that tastes can & do vary.

    You know, rather than depending on someone else’s s(t/l)ated preferences :p

  31. @Laura Resnick: I’ve just accidentally inhaled about an ounce of hot coffee.

    Between here and Whatever, the Web has proven hostile to your laptop lately, nei?

  32. Guys, this is getting really ugly. Can’t we just acknowledge that GK clearly has issues when it comes to reading comprehension?

    And understanding statistics.

    And some sort of attention deficit disorder that prevents them from following a comment thread or properly attributing responses.

    At a certain point, this becomes a re-tread of the infamous Making Light post from 2005, which Day is still getting treated on the Waaambulance! for.

  33. ” I do not believe for a moment that the Puppies intended this as a real goal, although I also do not doubt that they will want to take credit for it.”

    They’ve always been pretty up front about getting more people involved in the process. And the vote tallies appear the SP/RP did not vote in lockstep across all the categories. Would be interesting to see the nomination ballot numbers

  34. @NelC: The logical fallacies and subtle-as-a-brickbat rhetoric, not to mention empathic failures, are quite enough

    Is it time to start working out the rules of the Uberhunden Drinking Game? I’ve been saving up liver function for a beta-testing cycle.

    Rick Moen
    [email protected]

  35. “Who’s the arbiter of what a reader finds as a worthy story?”

    The voters. Unless they vote wrong of course

    There were what, 590 different novels nominated for Best Novel this year? Out of 2200 ballots cast? All 590 of them are worthy of a Hugo?

    People like what they like. I couldn’t finish the Anderson book, but I have a friend who loves it. Readers tastes very, and there is enough spread within the genre as a whole the certain niches/works will find their champions. I can’t explain why exactly, but I really like Pierce Brown’s Red Rising and Golden Son, but Red Rising didn’t make the cut this year, and I doubt Golden Son will next year, even if either work was on a slate.

  36. Most of the conversations I’ve followed on this and other sites with the SP/RPs are distressingly familiar to anyone who has a family member with Borderline Personality Disorder. Any disagreement, minor or major, incites cries of “you all tell lies all the time!” and “it’s a conspiracy !” and “you hate me because you’re jealous.” There are also sweeping threats, grandiose boasts, and, conversely, the insistence on taking everything anyone else says as completely literal. I’m sad to have to inform the SB/RB supporters that it’s one of the hardest mental illnesses to treat.

  37. snowcrash, my favorite part so far is how if you reply to an anti’s comment they reserve the right to cry Sealion! Sealion! as if you were berating them on their personal blog, not replying to a threat set up to for the explicit purpose of discussing opposing viewpoints. And if you explain that you are not pro-anybody, just disagreeing with a particular point, they can go no no you are one too, so there! I’m very disappointed with the prevailing tone.

  38. Well the Sealion thing is a short hand for describing posters with a habit of continually asking for more evidence or support until, in fact, you’ve looped back around and all evidence posted has been dismissed without, actually being considered.

    We started with a conspiracy to block people from getting Hugos. There was no conspiracy. No matter how many times were asked to prove the conspiracy that didn’t exist we won’t be able to do it.

    But hey. Keep at it. As I said elsewhere. Beale thinks in terms of years. Fandom holds grudges for decades.

    He brought a gun to a squirrel fight and it’s going to scratch.

  39. Daveon, is that the formal definition? I was just going by the cartoon posted earlier, which I understood to be about continuing a line of questioning in a series of inappropriate venues. (Which would be annoying!)

    IMHO the sealion thing may need to be refined or clarified a bit, since it feels a bit like some may have started using indiscriminately it to shut down questions they are unhappy about, while attributing motives to the questioners that they may or may not actually have.

    I don’t think it is reasonable to call anything that has happened a conspiracy, by the way.

    I personally think there is some degree of equivalence between advocating for a slate of candidates and advocating for no award, but that’s just my personal opinion. Which I mentioned here with no expectation that everyone else has to agree with me.

  40. @ Rick Moen: “Is it time to start working out the rules of the Uberhunden Drinking Game?”

    The first rule of the Uberhunden Drinking Game is that you don’t talk about the Uberhunden Drinking Game…

  41. Brian Z: “IMHO the sealion thing may need to be refined or clarified a bit, since it feels a bit like some may have started using indiscriminately it to shut down questions they are unhappy about, while attributing motives to the questioners that they may or may not actually have.”

    The know-your-meme definition is:
    Sea-Lioning is an Internet slang term referring to intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims.

    This is exactly what you do. And if you don’t like having it pointed out that you’re a Sea Lion, then stop doing it.

  42. Dear JJ,

    I’m afraid you may be saying that when anyone asks somebody else if they have evidence for their claims (an element of debate), and particularly if they seem to demonstrate a pattern of thinking that claims should be backed up by evidence (an element of logic), they are forcing this interest in debate and logic on an “unwilling participant.”

    I’m afraid you may be saying that any time anyone tries to be civil on the internet, they are faking it so will drop your guard and they can go for the jugular.

    I don’t agree.

    Now I kind of regret engaging you in the first place, but I repeated my request that you provide support for your claims in direct response to your stating repeatedly, in a discussion about conflicting claims about the Hugo awards (!), that my own claims are baseless and that I am an “apologist” for the side that you believe is wrong even though I do not support them, not to mention posting a list of every comment I’ve made on File 770 and attacking each of them one by one. To put it mildly, that doesn’t make my questions “intrusive,” nor does it make you an “unwilling participant” I have dared to disturb.

  43. Sorry Brian but I do see you and several others here, especially Steve Moss doing exactly that.

    As for the false equivalence. If you break a previous agreement, albeit, I concede, one that is not codified (just like I don’t sign an agreement to pee on the floor of friend’s home I visit, but don’t do so) I feel I am at rights not to greet bad behaviour with any degree of understanding.

    Beale wants to break the Hugo’s and punish people. He has said as much here. As such, and given other things he said I don’t feel under any obligation to negotiate with him as a hostage taker here. I don’t care that he gave me a chance to back down, I was taught by a fairly over bearing and bullying father not to give in to people like that. Therefore I see voting No Award as my natural, and perfectly logical reaction to an attempt to bully me. YMMV.

  44. Brian Z: “I’m afraid you may be saying that when anyone asks somebody else if they have evidence for their claims (an element of debate), and particularly if they seem to demonstrate a pattern of thinking that claims should be backed up by evidence (an element of logic), they are forcing this interest in debate and logic on an “unwilling participant.”

    No, Brian, that is not what I’m saying. And so I’m left to draw one of 2 conclusions here: either you’re deliberately being obtuse, as a continuing part of your Sea Lion strategy, or you’re incredibly poor at logical thought reasoning.

    You say “I’m not defending” someone while defending them. You say “I’m not arguing with you”, when in fact, you are arguing. You say “I’m not complaining”, when in fact, you were complaining about another commenter “splitting hairs”.

    You frequently respond to things that other people say by posting something that is kind of in that area, but is actually not at all a response to what was said — and often you just completely change the subject, or imply that the other person has said something they’ve not actually said. You’ve done this to me numerous times, and you’ve done it to several other people numerous times as well. On one occasion, you launched into a long, derailing post which completely failed to address my comment, and thought that it should somehow qualify as a response.

    So are you really this bad at logical reasoning, or are you attempting to derail? You tell me.

    What you call me “attacking” your comments was actually me pointing out why they are incredibly problematic. And how did you respond? By posting “responses” which did nothing to actually contradict the points I was making.

    “I’m sure we won’t have to wait ten years for someone on the left to propose a slate.” <– That? That, right there, is your feigned civility slipping.

    You said, "The whole thing was a dumb idea but Brad Torgersen didn’t kill the Hugos. His cohort didn’t even vote in lockstep (though a few of Vox Day’s apparently did). Do you realize what descending on the Puppy Tabernacle with torches and pitchforks looks like? Step back for a minute." <– That? That, right there, is your feigned civility slipping.

    “If work as good as Three Body Problem not making the ballot is a fiasco, it’s been fiascos for quite a while now." <– That? That, right there, is your feigned civility slipping.

    In a comment on an article about Brianna Wu saying that she didn’t want Puppies to attend her GamerGate panel at RavenCon and the RavenCon organizers had decided not to hold a proposed panel entitled "The Hugos", you said: “In response I wonder if being reluctant to provide a forum for writers/editors/artists who failed to decline a 2015 Hugo nomination going to end once the 2015 ceremony is over.” <– That? That, right there, is your feigned civility slipping.

    When I called you out on this, you then tried to retcon your comment, saying "I was referring to the nixing of a proposed RavenCon panel on the Hugos, which was a reluctance on the part of the con, not a conspiracy."

    In other words, you said that not holding a panel on the Hugos is RavenCon “being reluctant to provide a forum for writers/editors/artists who failed to decline a 2015 Hugo nomination”. You then denied that you were saying that there was a conspiracy to deny the Puppy nominees a forum when in fact, that was exactly what you were saying.

    “In general, what is the proper form when repudiating a slate in the future?
    ‘I, Author, have been informed that there is a list with my name on it. You folks had better not vote for me because I was on that list, or else I will decline the nomination.’
    Do I have that right?” <– That? That, right there, is your feigned civility slipping.

    “Nor do I understand how we have even reached the point where this many professional authors are standing at their bully pulpits admonishing fans about how they should or shouldn’t vote in a fan award, and telling people what they should or shouldn’t read.” <– That? That, right there, is your feigned civility slipping.

    When I repeated, several times, “The slates were a successful attempt to “game” the Hugo voting ballot. They were within the rules, but not the spirit of the Hugos. In no universe can it be claimed that this gaming of the Hugo ballot was done “in good faith”.
    you responded by repeatedly demanding proof that there was collusion between the Sad Pupppies and the Rabid Puppies — as if the lack of collusion would somehow make the Sad Puppies slate any less than something done “in bad faith” — which it is.

    Now, maybe you just really have difficulty organizing your thoughts and phrasing responses in a way that actually responds to what other people said. Maybe you’re just really bad at logical thinking.

    But I’ve engaged with you long enough on here that you’ve conclusively demonstrated, in my opinion, that you know exactly what you are doing. That you’re deliberately, again and again, trying to derail, and make excuses, and minimize, and trivialize what the Puppies have done.

    And certainly everyone else here is perfectly capable of judging from your comments whether that is true — whether you like it or not.

  45. Daveon in my opinion you absolutely have every right no-award if you want to and also to campaign for others to no-award if you want to. It looks similar to the slates to me, but I thought they had every right to propose a slate (even though I wouldn’t have).

    Re “aquatic mammals,” you are misreading my intent (at least), but since I think you are being sincere, I will go back and look at my words on the page to see where I might write differently in future to avoid opening the door to that interpretation.

    As for Steve Moss, is he really engaged in “intrusive attempts at engaging an unwilling debate opponent by feigning civility and incessantly requesting evidence to back up their claims”? I thought this thread was set up for the express purpose of talking through these issues and inviting people with differing points of view to participate. He seems sincere enough to me though I don’t always agree with him (and don’t necessarily share his taste in literature). I guess you could question his motives, but wouldn’t it be simpler to just listen to what he has to say, decide to engage with it, or not, and then move on?

    Also, in the heat of debate, I wonder if it is really a good idea to call someone an animal, even if it is an adorable sea lion? Everyone seems to have become so desensitized to these things!

  46. To be honest I’m seeing bad faith discussions here hence my references to aquatic mammals.

    Where I come from a ‘slate’ has a very clear and specific meaning – it was used extensively in student politics by political parties to ram a preselected list of candidates into the executive roles for the student union management team. It was pretty effective, and is an effective tool for driving an outcome in an electorate who are driven more by ideology than desire for an outcome.

    I have no issue with that concept, nobody else on the non puppy side seems to, and yet we’ve spent days bouncing around dictionary definitions of words with no apparent desire to understand. I think that’s classic sealioning… Bringing up, as Mr Moss has the dictionary definition of ‘slate’ and ignoring it’s useable in electoral terms is obtuse to say the least.

    Voting no award as a reaction to hostage taking is my decision. I’ve read the works, or at least most of them now, I have had to deal with my feelings of whether I should do that the Kary English and I can live with my decision. I’m not calling on anybody else to do so, nor do I expect to. It’s not a slate, anymore than me saying that in best novel I’m voting Three Body #1…

    Here’s a slate:

    Everybody should vote Three Body #1, Goblin Emperor #2,Anciliary Sword #3 then No Award #4…. I think you agree I know what’s best for us all, vote accordingly.

    Now, THAT’S a slate.

Comments are closed.