948 thoughts on “That Hell-Hound Train 5/20”

1. to mock faux activists… some people reclaimed the “warrior” position

   How do we know whether a particular person is an SJW or not?

   I can see how “On the internet, nobody knows you’re an SJW.” On the other hand, one response to being accused of being faux activists might be to simply affirm one’s principles and get on with being an activist.

2. @Nick Mamatas
   I’ve been a lurker, but I wanted to say that I, too, remember when SJW was a derisive term from progressive activists and advocates lobbed at others on the left. I mostly remember it being used when so-called allies would get so into “activism” that they’d end up talking over or around the people they were saying they were defending(esp. on Tumblr). (For instance, a transgender woman getting dog-piled by the cis-gender “SJWs” for using the word “tranny”.)

   I don’t think anyone had bothered to try to reclaim it until the far-right co-opted it, especially during gamergate when it seemed to fold into common right-wing, reactionary lingo. That’s when it started to mean “anyone who advocates social justice for minorities” instead of “person who cares more about seeming to care about social justice, even if you end up hurting the people you’re nominally helping”.

3. ‘They might not see the dynamic this way themselves.’

   When the last SJW is hung with the intestines of the last CHORF, then they will have achieved true victory.

4. The year is 2037.

   At long last, the SJWs have been quelled.

   But for how long? How long can peace and rationality and Nutty Nuggets reign, before some new Prince of Lies comes along and begin polluting our world with these same, horrible ideas, such as gender equality?

   There is only one recourse. To prevent a recurrence, we must abolish gender itself.

5. @Peace: Yes I have!

   No, you haven’t. I didn’t criticize Moss for liking Dresden. I criticized him for the grandiose (and patently silly) claim that “It is probably the most layered and textured world building in modern SF/F.”

6. Aaron on May 22, 2015 at 6:04 am said:

   @Peace: Yes I have!

   No, you haven’t. I didn’t criticize Moss for liking Dresden. I criticized him for the grandiose (and patently silly) claim that “It is probably the most layered and textured world building in modern SF/F.”

   Hey, foul!

   You are not quoting me, you are quoting Standback on May 21, 2015 at 9:23 pm

   I puzzled over this because it did not sound like me at all, so I went back and found the quote.

7. He was in fact quoting me addressing you 🙂

8. Standback on May 22, 2015 at 6:39 am said:

   He was in fact quoting me addressing you 🙂

   Formatting on this site can get very confusing.

9. Sorry Peace. The formatting took a weird turn there.

10. Eh, it’s okay, @Aaron, these things happen. I need to work more to ruffle feathers less.

11. My recollection of the origins of ‘SJW’ matches Kimberly’s and Nick’s: It was a term used to make fun of people who railed in favor of social justice online but theoretically did little in the ‘real world’ to advance that cause.

    So even before it became a banner to rally the GG-crowd under, it was used divisively. After GG started using it heavily a wider crowd of left-leaning folks began to wonder what was so horrible about being someone who cared enough about Social Justice to fight for it. Thus began the effort to reclaim the term and branch it into other RPG classes (SJMage! SJRogue!)

    But nailing down groups like the puppies and GGers about a definition will yield about as many result as there are members. Sometimes more as the members adjust the definition to meet some new “threat.” It’s particularly fun to watch someone fall out of favor with one of those crowds and get stuck with the label.

    Basically now it means “someone I don’t agree with.”

12. Hampus: Shetterly did not coin the term SJW when he founded his blog (he adopted it from its widespread use on LiveJournal), but indeed he *is* a creature of the left who used the term to mock other leftists. The split was and remains among his unreconstructed Marxism and the identity politics, informed by Critical Race Theory, of the SJWs.

13. Nick Mamatas: Nicole, I didn’t say that people didn’t require training to read genres, I said that people didn’t require much training to read mysteries. SF/F often does require a bit of training, actually.

    Oh, OK, I get you now.

    Speaking as an SF/F reader (and writer) who doesn’t really read the mystery genre, I’ve just assumed I currently lack the Mystery Reading Skillset, same way others lack the SF/F Reading Skillset. (I certainly lack the mystery writing skillset. Shaping stories that way doesn’t come naturally to me) But if things really aren’t that parallel, I’m happy to take the word of someone more knowledgeable about it.

14. “Speaking as an SF/F reader (and writer) who doesn’t really read the mystery genre, I’ve just assumed I currently lack the Mystery Reading Skillset, same way others lack the SF/F Reading Skillset. (I certainly lack the mystery writing skillset. Shaping stories that way doesn’t come naturally to me) But if things really aren’t that parallel, I’m happy to take the word of someone more knowledgeable about it.”

    If this sort of stuff interests you (what it takes to read a genre, etc.) I recommend Chip Delany’s “Jewel-Hinged Jaw” as a book of essays that might appeal. He also gets into the whole (non-existent, to his lights) “style vs. content” discussion, and has some very insightful essays on some great SFnal works in there.

15. >> Would it really that hard to settle on the meaning of SJW? >>

    Yes.

    Because if you define it in any real specific terms, it will become clear that many, many of the people that are being called SJWs aren’t, and the “we’re opposing an evil conspiracy” claim will deflate.

    If it would actually be useful to those who use the term as something to rally against to define it, it would probably also be useful to take the Mamatas challenge. But it isn’t, because vagueness is more useful than specificity. Specificity would expose the hollowness of the claims.

16. Steven Schwartz: That does sound interesting. Thanks for the recommendation!

17. The split was and remains among his unreconstructed Marxism and the identity politics, informed by Critical Race Theory, of the SJWs.

    Based on his comments and posts linked here, I suspect VD is in fact using the term in its original (leftist) sense of attacking people who are not being true to their principles. To which the best, or maybe the only serious, response is to strive to be true to one’s principles. (So far as I know.)

    If we are going to make it about putting people in boxes, I kind of liked Freire but if SJWs are now the ones who accept CRT, fine. Quote something like Maria Matsuda saying formal criminal and administrative sanction–public as opposed to private prosecution–is an appropriate response to racist speech and agree with that, or not, and the ones do get to be the SJWs.

    If that doesn’t work, I’ve googled “how to stop people calling you names”:

    – Take deep breaths if you get mad, but make sure they don’t see you do it.

    – Whatever you do, do not react to any of their quotes, for this will make them think that it’s working and will keep doing it!

    – Don’t sweat it! It’ll stop soon enough.

18. Vox Day in a comment on Vox Popoli – May 20 at 5:36 p.m.

    “As for graphic novels, can we burn that category down at least?”

    “Go for it. It merits it.”

    The line given to Alfred in The Dark Knight is accurate: Some men would just rather watch the world burn. (Although I suspect that any version of The Joker ever rendered would quickly get bored by Mr. Beale/Day and dispose of him.)

19. “For all their complaints about cliques, political messages and works getting nominated which are of poor quality and are’t sfnal enough, here they have done exactly what they accuse the imaginary cabal of doing.”

    You may already know this as it’s a common dysfunction, but in psychology that’s called “projection”, in which in this case a false worldview of persecution is overlaid onto an “enemy”, self-justifying the worldview-persecuted in doing exactly what they imagine the “enemy” doing. It’s quite common in certain dogmatic political and religious groups, and that it has infected science fiction has occurred somewhat later than I expected, but is not surprising.

20. I suppose this is a bit of late l’esprit d’escalier, but:

    @Nate:

    We showed up to the party first… and brought so bacon and steak and yummy barbecue chicken there wasn’t any room left on the pot-luck table when you showed up with your Tofu.

    No. You brought a bunch of mystery meat.

    It turned out to be offal.

21. I don’t see the point in spending a lot of time trying to come up with a definition for “SJW” as defined by a few participants at File770. It’s just mental masturbation, and whatever definition is arrived at will be ignored by Puppies and non-Puppies alike.

22. “If I come to your house and poop in the punchbowl for fun and you get angry at me for it, then I start pooping in all your punchbowls to get back at you for getting angry at me, are you at fault for being angry or am I just excusing my bad behavior?”

    This first action is an all-too-common occurrence, invariably followed by the reaction mentioned, and the further action then done.

    The second answer is the correct answer — decent, just, and polite adult human beings are aware of that — and people who are habitual about defecation and revenge are aware in their hearts of it, too, but they do not let that awareness guide their actions. They instead give way to temptation as they are motivated by hatred and fear are in their hearts. They are of Screwtape’s party.

23. That answer is more thoughtful and honest than a metaphor about defecating into a party drink deserves.

24. I don’t see the point in spending a lot of time trying to come up with a definition for “SJW” as defined by a few participants at File770. It’s just mental masturbation, and whatever definition is arrived at will be ignored by Puppies and non-Puppies alike.

    Maybe we could define “SJWs” as people who believe that thinking about a situation from someone else’s perspective is pointless.

25. Brian Z: “Maybe we could define “SJWs” as people who believe that thinking about a situation from someone else’s perspective is pointless.”

    Or maybe “we” could stop being a derailing, Puppy Talking Point spouting asshole.

26. I take that back. You’ve been around here long enough, that we all know by now it’s not going to happen.

27. >> Maybe we could define “SJWs” as people who believe that thinking about a situation from someone else’s perspective is pointless.>>

    Puppies are SJWs now?

28. Puppies are SJWs now?

    Kurt Busiek, take another look at Kate Paulk’s Sad Puppies Manifesto and count how many times she employed phrases like SJW, CHORF, or “stick it to the literati.”

    http://madgeniusclub.com/2015/05/21/of-puppies-and-principles/

    If you can’t be bothered, I’ll tell you. Zero.

    The harshest thing in there is asking people to respect readers from “all places and lifestyles” and “don’t assume they are inferior to you.”

    You don’t think she’s listening?

29. Brian Z.: “The harshest thing in there is asking people to respect readers from ‘all places and lifestyles’ and ‘don’t assume they are inferior to you’.”

    Though her completely ignoring the fact that worldbuilding is a hugely-important part of SFF fiction and utterly failing to mention it as a critical criterium is certainly telling.

30. Brian,

    She may be listening, she may say something completely different tomorrow. That’s been par for the course for the Princes of Puppyland thus far.

    At any rate, her article is horrifying as it suggests that There Shall Be Fiction of Only One Type.

31. Nick, “there actually are some broad principles that underlie the Sad Puppies campaigns” followed by criteria suggests that there is one particular type of fiction they’d like to see noticed for awards more often, not that it is the only type that should exist. I think I’m pretty much fine with that.

32. Brian Z: “there actually are some broad principles that underlie the Sad Puppies campaigns” followed by criteria suggests that there is one particular type of fiction they’d like to see noticed for awards more often, not that it is the only type that should exist. I think I’m pretty much fine with that.”

    And the reason you’re not over there participating in that blog instead of over here is…?

33. And the reason you’re not over there participating in that blog instead of over here is…?

    Because we’re here to fight our common enemy… the Warriors of Social Justice!

    Splitter!

34. JJ: I don’t understand your exasperated comments to Brian Z. It won’t take you but a moment to realize how much more pleasant it is to talk to him than some others we won’t name.

35. Brian,

    Given that the campaign tactic is to push out most non-Puppy fiction, and given the context of other SF being called fraudulent (Nutty Nuggets that aren’t), only to the taste of a few elitists on their thrones, and the end result of Affirmative Action, it is too saying that There Shall Be Fiction of Only One Type.

36. I thought we liked BrianZ? At least, if he says that Kate isn’t frothing at the mouth in her essay, I’m willing to go look.

    (snipped snide comment about other puppy whom I would not trust- sigh)

37. Brian, I’m a little amazed, even after seeing your schtick for a while, at your even taking a shot at selling an idea as illogical as “If I cannot find an insult in one post by one Puppy, therefore it is false to suggest that there are Puppies who fit the definition I offered for SJW.”

    But hey, if you really want a definition of SJW, instead of asking the people who are being called SJWs (including by Paulk, in other posts), why not ask the people who have been enthusiastically using the term to label those they oppose? Get definitions from Beale, Torgersen, Correia, Wright and Paulk, and whoever else seems to be using it as if it means something. Then see if those definitions are reconcilable. If they are, you’ll have a working definition, and you can start seeing if it actually applies to many people, or if it’s just a big meant-to-be-scary strawman.

    I don’t think there’s much point in us trying to define the word for them, because (a) they’re the ones using it, and (b) they don’t appear to use it in any consistent fashion, other than as a generalized insult, so I doubt they’d start using it consistently if anyone else provided a definition. That’s not because I haven’t made any attempt at understanding them; it’s because I have, and I don’t think there is any consistent definition of the term, and I think that’s deliberate.

    But if you really want suggestions for what “SJW” means from people here, I’ll offer mine: “People who own Siamese cats.”

    Let’s settle on that. It’s clear and unambiguous. For instance, it would mean that I grew up in an SJW household, but since childhood have not been an SJW. You can use it to sort people into SJWs, former SJWs, friends of SJWs, people who might someday become SJWs (my wife is allergic to cats, so not me) and so on, all with a very high degree of clarity.

    Go tell the Puppy leaders we’ve settled on a definition. See whether they join us in that welcoming clarity. If not, perhaps you should ask them what they mean by it, since by doing so, they’ll be trying to describe the worldview of those they see as the “other side,” which will involve trying to see things from the point of view of others. And that, after all, is something you apparently think Puppies are highly willing to do because of a single blog post by one of them, when she wasn’t coughing and spitting at her own mention of Tor Books.

    “People who own Siamese cats.” I’d be delighted to settle on that as the definition. It does make me wonder why the Puppies are so angry at cat owners — at least Siamese cat owners — but once we’re settled on the definition, maybe we can think about it from their point of view and figure out why they have this seemingly-irrational stance. It could be a valuable exercise for both sides, and bring about the rapprochement that you hope to achieve by exhorting one side do all the understanding and accommodating.

38. Mike: “I don’t understand your exasperated comments to Brian Z. It won’t take you but a moment to realize how much more pleasant it is to talk to him than some others we won’t name.”

    Mike, I’m exasperated because, unlike those others, Brian keeps insisting that he is not a Puppy while repeating (again and again) numerous Puppy Talking Points such as “they’re actually sincere about liking good SFF”, “what they did was within the rules and perfectly legal”, “people with blogs who say they are going to put ‘No Award’ above Puppy works are using ‘bully pulpits’ to convince readers to vote against the Puppies”, “changing the WSFS rules regarding the nominations process won’t do any good”, and just generally repeatedly making excuses for and minimizing behavior that is in bad faith or even malicious.

    VD, TK, JCW, xdpaul and their ilk don’t exasperate me, because everyone can see exactly who and what they are from a mile away, and everyone for the most part just laughs at them and/or ignores them.

    Brian Z, on the other hand, in between Puppy Apologism Posts, is playing at being neutral — when in fact, he is anything but. I find that sort of disingenuousness rather detestable.

39. Brian Z:

    “Maybe we could define “SJWs” as people who believe that thinking about a situation from someone else’s perspective is pointless.”

    At last, Brian Z came out of the closet as an SJW. With an extra dose of passive aggression.

40. Nick, Kate also said that she is not going to copy the earlier Sad Puppy campaigns, which she said had “individual colors,” and that they share with her only these few broad principles she outlines in her essay. Also note that she is unequivocal about the importance of reading (and buying) the work. It sounds like she’s going for a new tone here to me.

    Of course, you don’t have to give her the benefit of the doubt, and even I suspect she might change her tune a bit if she does something more reasonable than last year and still gets attacked for it – again, they’re only human.

    Kurt, did you read what she wrote?

41. Brian Z.: “It sounds like she’s going for a new tone here to me… Of course, you don’t have to give her the benefit of the doubt, and even I suspect she might change her tune a bit if she does something more reasonable than last year and still gets attacked for it – again, they’re only human.”

    I don’t care what “tone” the person helming a Slate uses, if it’s a list of ~5 works in each category directed at a bunch of people who have been whipped up with “stick it to the SJWs!” rhetoric (of which she herself has been guilty of plenty).

    If she behaves even more badly because a bunch of people point out the fact that what she’s doing is wrong, well then, that says a great deal about what sort of person she is, and nothing about the people who’ve pointed out that what she is doing is wrong.

    Oh, and you’re doing that whole “excuse and minimize bad behavior on the part of the Puppies” thing again.

42. JJ, why is it hard to understand that I don’t particularly like any of those Sad Puppy authors, don’t particularly like to read them, and certainly wouldn’t vote for them (when I was rooting for Watts and Gibson!!), and I merely think that the response to their having miscalculated and created a huge mess this year has been an overreaction?

43. She can claim whatever she wants, but she can’t have it both ways. She can’t wave the Puppy flag *and* disassociate herself from Puppy rhetoric.

44. I don’t care what “tone” the person helming a Slate uses, if it’s a list of ~5 works in each category

    Maybe you should go on Mad Genius, and ask her if she is going to tell people to vote for a slate of about 5 works. After all, she hasn’t said that’s what she’s doing.

45. >> Kurt, did you read what she wrote? >>

    Did I need to? You provided the analysis you wanted me to get from it, in case I thought it was too much trouble, after all. And that analysis was utterly irrelevant to the idea that many Puppies fit the definition of SJW you offered.

    But since you ask, I read much of it, and I’ve read other material by Paulk in which she does not come across as as saintly as you apparently choose to believe, and unlike you, I’m not at this point ready to assume that her manifesto is a trustworthy document for describing the state of Puppydom overall, or even her own beliefs, since they might change as swiftly as other Puppy rationales have been abandoned and replaced. We’ll see what comes, and I wish her success if she’s actually trying to be moderate and logical. But I’ll wait and see, for now.

    So we’re settled on the Siamese cat thing? That’s the definition from here on out?

46. Brian Z: “why is it hard to understand that I don’t particularly like any of those Sad Puppy authors, don’t particularly like to read them, and certainly wouldn’t vote for them

    Oh, that’s not hard to understand at all. It’s just hard to believe — because it’s utterly inconsistent with a great deal of the other things you say here.

    I was raised to compare what people say about themselves to what they say about other things and to how they behave — and I was told that if the first thing varies hugely from the second and third things, that the second and third things are the ones to believed.

    So you can go on and on all day, claiming that you’re not a Puppy, that you’re you’re neutral, that you don’t like the things that are written by the Puppy authors, that you don’t agree with the Puppies’ viewpoints, that you don’t like the Puppy blogs and don’t hang out there, but when all the other things you say on here directly contradict those claims, when you repeatedly make excuses for and minimize behavior which is at best in bad faith and at worst incredibly malicious (I merely think that the response to their having miscalculated and created a huge mess this year has been an overreaction) — which do you think I am going to believe?

47. Brian Z.: “Maybe you should go on Mad Genius, and ask her if she is going to tell people to vote for a slate of about 5 works. After all, she hasn’t said that’s what she’s doing.”

    Why should I do that? Why should I care what she “says” she is planning to do? She could be (and from what I’ve seen, actually is) just as big a dissembler as you are.

    The only time I’ll believe what she’s going to do next year is when I actually see what she does next year.

48. >> We’ll see what comes, and I wish her success if she’s actually trying to be moderate and logical.>>

    I should clarify: I wish her success at being moderate and logical, if that’s indeed what she’s trying to do. I don’t wish her to be successful with slates. I’m not in favor of slates, no matter who’s running them.

    I hope at some point she explains what her objections to Siamese cat owners is, and why she thought they were secretly controlling the Hugos.

49. Kurt Busiek: “I hope at some point she explains what her objections to Siamese cat owners is, and why she thought they were secretly controlling the Hugos.”

    As a self-confessed SJW and a double-Siamese-cat-owner, sir, I concur.

    Though given that I strongly suspect that Siamese cats are controlling a great deal more than we think they are, it would not surprise me to discover that they have actually been controlling the Hugos all this time as well, and we clueless humans have just been oblivious to it.

50. Kurt Busiek,

    I’ve read other material by Paulk in which she does not come across as as saintly

    These threads are long so it is understandable if you missed it, but I’ve already been critical of her (not to mention her fire-breathing compatriots) for throwing around that kind of language – which is why this (apparently ironically titled) “manifesto” was a breath of fresh air.

    Siamese cat thing

    What would happen if we went over to the Puppies (as you put it)? I don’t know. Would you like to try?

    If I were to do it (and it is not really my place to do it since I’m not the one who is feeling angry with them) I suppose I might say something like: “A common definition of social justice is to help create conditions where the weak can empower themselves, and that principle is generally accepted by us progressives. There is a subset, not all of us, who think that fighting injustices may sometimes require public punishing even of the use of words that could set back those causes. But the specific term SJW was until recently only used by people on the left to refer to other lefties who were insincere about their leftist principles. What do you think?”

Comments are closed.