That Hell-Hound Train 5/20

Posted on by

aka I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by puppies

Today’s roundup represents the collective wisdom of Larry Correia, Christopher M. Chupik, John Scalzi, MattK, Nathan, Vox Day, Jeremiah Tolbert, Kevin Callum, William Reichard, Phil Sandifer, Nicholas Whyte,  Russell Blackford, Daniel Ausema, Chris Gerrib, Joe Sherry, Lisa J. Goldstein, Martin Lewis, Katya Czaja, Adult Onset Atheist, Morag and Erin, JJ and Nyq. (Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editors of the day Jim Henley and Jeff Smith.)

Larry Correia on Monster Hunter Nation

“Hugo Voter Packet now available for download” – May 20

It should go without saying, but apparently I need to plainly state the blatantly obvious, everyone should read the nominations and vote honestly.

 

Christopher M. Chupik in a comment on Monster Hunter Nation – May 20

Your weasely, dog-whistle dudebro code doesn’t fool me! I know that you *really* mean “suppress the vote of female and minority Hugo voters”. And any minorities or women who pop up to dispute that are just tokens and human shields!

 

John Scalzi on Whatever

“How You Should Vote for the Hugos This Year” – May 20

I think the slates are bullshit, and I think the people who created them (and at least some of the people on them) are acting like petulant, whiny crybabies and/or obnoxious, self-aggrandizing opportunists. I’m also aware some slate choices were not made aware they had been put on slates, or were placed on them under false pretenses. Some of those so slated chose to leave the ballot, which I think is impressive and well done them, but I can’t really fault those who chose to stay, not in the least because for some of them it would be politically or personally awkward to withdraw, for various reasons. And, on the principle that a stopped clock can be correct twice a day, it’s entirely possible something or someone that is a slate choice is genuinely deserving of consideration for the Hugo, and I am loath to discount that, particularly if the person to whom the award would be given was also an unwilling (or misinformed) draftee onto a slate.

So here is my plan:

  1. I am going to look back on my own Hugo nomination ballot, and identify in each category the work/person I nominated that I judged to be my “last place” choice in the category.
  2. When confronted with a nominee on the final ballot who was placed there by a slate, I will ask myself: “Is this work/person better than my own ‘last place’ nominee?”
  3. If the answer is ‘yes,” then I will rank that work/person above “No Award” on my final ballot, and otherwise rank them accordingly to my own preference.
  4. If the answer is “no,” then I won’t put that work/person on my ballot at all, and I will put “No Award” below my choices in the category so it’s clear that I would prefer no award given than to offer the Hugo to anything/anyone I’ve left off the ballot.

 

MattK in a comment on Brad R. Torgersen – May 20

Voting “No Award” over a work that one thinks has been “nominated inappropriately” is really a vote against the process of nomination, and should take place in a different venue, at the WorldCon business meetings where the Hugo rules can be discussed for possible change.

Voting “No Award” over another work based on your perception of the ideological views of the author is a stand that you should make with your pocketbook, or your own internet pulpit, and not by subverting the Hugo process for your own preferred social or political purposes.

Voting “No Award” over a work because it doesn’t contain the requisite number of women/gays/minorities portrayed in the politically correct fashion of the week actually does superficially start to bear on the idea of the merit of the work. However, only someone who has lost all sense of the real purpose of art could believe the idea that the faddish political checklists of the day have anything to do with “excellence in the field of science fiction or fantasy.” Excellence in the field of social and political propaganda is quite a different category entirely, one with which historically prominent figures named Adolph and Josef were very familiar, back in my grandparents’ day. Many of us are tired of being told that “science fiction” which scores highly on that particular metric is the best that the field has to offer today — especially when it only tangentially seems to be science fiction at all. As has been noted elsewhere many times, political art is to art as military intelligence is to intelligence. In deference to our host, I’ll say that I suspect that comparison may be somewhat unfair to military intelligence.

 

Nathan in a comment on Vox Popoli  – May 20 at 5:08 p.m.

Sounds more like they are looking for reasons to justify what they’ve already decided to do. As for graphic novels, can we burn that category down at least?

 

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.

 

 

Kevin Callum in a comment on Making Light – May 19

In my opinion, the Sad Puppies and their third slate would have come to nothing in the Hugo voting if the Rabid Puppies slate didn’t exist. I see it this way. The Sad Puppies knew they didn’t have sufficient swaying power beyond their personal subscriber base(s) and hired a mercenary. The mercenary took over the campaign and behind the Sad Puppies’ backs promoted his own slate that took over the Hugo Awards. This left the Sad Puppies with nothing to take credit for since the Rabid Puppies completely stole the Sad Puppies’ thunder. And yet the Sad Puppies keep blathering on.

I understand the blustering by those in the Rabid camp. They can actually claim some sort of victory. But now that the Sad Puppies have actively distanced themselves from the Rabid Puppies, what do they have left? When I see Correia or Torgerson bloviating (through File770, since I don’t want to inflate their sense of importance by inflating their page counts), I picture a child stomping his foot and yelling, “My dad can beat up your dad.”*

These guys keep running about as if they have something important to say, and people keep referring to the Sad Puppies campaign. To me the Sad Puppies have almost no relevance and haven’t since the announcement of the Hugo nominees. The Rabid Puppies did the actual sweeping.

The Sad Puppies really do have an apt name since at this point they can only cry about their platform getting stolen out from under them.

So when I see articles from institutions like the Wall Street Journal, I think great—the wider the coverage the better. But I keep thinking they have misrepresented the facts by giving so much credit to the Sad Puppies.

*Or, since they seem to think that the SJWs are mostly women, “My dad can beat up your mom.”

 

William Reichard

”No country for previous generation androids” – May 20

http://plaeroma.com/ is marked private by its owner.

 

 

https://twitter.com/PhilSandifer/status/600914488313937920

 

https://twitter.com/PhilSandifer/status/600914584497737728

 

Nicholas Whyte on From The Heart of Europe

“Wisdom from my Internet, by Michael Z. Williamson” – May 20

Wisdom from my Internet is a really bad book. I will admit that I disagree with about 90% of Williamson’s political statements; but even in the few cases where I don’t, his style is just not very funny. More objectively, I’ve got a quarter of the way through and if there has been any actual reference to SF I have missed it. I prefer my Best Related Works to actually be, well, related. I don’t think I will bother with the rest.

How interesting that the author is a mate of the slatemongers, and that it was not recommended by a single contributor to the crowdsourcing exercise (which we are repeatedly told was “100% open” and “democratic”), yet ended up on both slates anyway! It has reinforced my intention to vote “No Award” for this entire category.

This nomination really shows up the bad faith of those behind the slates. 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. It is simply shameful.

 

Russell Blackford on Metamagician and the Hellfire Club

“Hugo Awards Voters Packet” – May 21

Whatever the extent of the genuine problems, there has been a massive overreaction this year by a group of people (or, seemingly, two rather different groups of people) who are disenchanted.

I can think that those people have greatly exaggerated whatever real problems existed with the Hugos – and that they have made things worse by introducing an unprecedented level of blatant, politicized campaigning – without  wanting to take part in a campaign of retaliation that could destroy the awards. Further: I can think that those people are probably wrong, misguided, thinking about the issues ahistorically, acting counterproductively, etc., while also thinking that they, or at least most of them, are decent, sincere individuals who are doing their (misguided) best and may even have identified some good material that would normally be overlooked. As to the latter, we’ll see. Meanwhile, some of these people have been subjected to personal vilification and abuse, harassment, and even death threats; there is utterly no place for any of this.

Once again, in any event, I plan to play it straight. I will vote for material on its merits, and I’ll try to review some of it here.

 

 

Daniel Ausema on The Geekiary

“Hugos and Puppies, the 2015 Short Fiction Nominees” – May 21

My intent all along has been to read each of the nominees and judge them regardless of who wrote them or who nominated them. That, of course, has become more problematic as the controversy rages. No person can be completely without bias. Nevertheless, I will do my best to review these short stories as if this were a normal year for Hugo nominations. I’ve gone out of my way to avoid learning whether the individual writers in this list were involved, supported, or knew ahead of time anything about either slate.

With that in mind, here are the nominees for short fiction….

“The Parliament of Beasts and Birds”, John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)

This a fable-like story, with a group of animals wondering what to do now that some sort of apocalypse has fallen. The humans (called “Man” here) have disappeared, leaving the animals uneasy and confused. The truth they uncover is that some version of the Christian end times has carried humans away, leaving the animals to decide what to do now with this human-less world.

Writing-wise, this captures the feel of animal folk tales well most of the time, though at times the attempt falls into overwrought prose. But overall, it’s weakened by the fact that it fails to do much more than retell a specifically religious tale, adding only the idea of animals being saved or condemned. It offers little new, neither to those already well familiar with the religious backdrop nor to those who do not self-identify with a Left-Behind sort of Christianity…..

 

Chris Gerrib on Private Mars Rocket

“Hugo Packet – The Wrong Way to Wright” – May 20

I am really bouncing hard off of John C. Wright’s novellas. For One Bright Star to Guide Them I’m baffled by the attitude to magic. Robertson, our first character, hasn’t thought of magic for years, yet the instant he sees a black cat he’s all magic!!!! – Then when we visit Richard, he alternates in the same paragraph between “yeah magic, especially if it gets me laid” and “no magic for me, I’m British.” Oh, and since when have you described out loud what somebody was wearing to the person wearing it? Sorry, no dice. (Oh, and I checked – somebody on File 770 thinks that Wright forgot the name of one of his characters, and changed it from Sarah to Sally randomly. Not so – she is referred to as both names, but there’s no explanation as to why in the story. It would have been better to be consistent.) ….

 

Joe Sherry on Adventures in Reading

“Thoughts on the Hugo Award Nominees: Fan Artist” – May 20

No Award: While Foster and Stiles have been perennial nominees, and I had a very nice e-mail exchange with Foster last year when I was looking to highlight the art of all of the nominees (something I do not plan to do this year), I don’t feel this art is truly among the best. It is art of a particular style, and I think it has fit the fanzines they have often been published in, but when you compare to Elizabeth Leggett, well, there is no comparison. I appreciated Ninni Aalto’s work more than those of Foster and Stiles, but it still doesn’t quite rise above and meet the levels of Leggett and Schoenhuth.

 

Lisa J. Goldstein on theinferior4

“The Hugo Ballot, Part 12: Novellas” – May 20

[CONTAINS SPOILER]

A brief summary of “Pale Realms of Shade,” just so you know what I’m talking about — Matt Flint, a private eye, has been killed and returns as a ghost.  He doesn’t remember who killed him, and goes on a quest to find out…. A lot of this murkiness, I think, is the prose.  Wright never uses one word when ten or twenty will do.

 

Martin Lewis on Everything Is Nice

“Hugo Voting – Fan Writer” – May 20

1) No Award

2) Laura J Mixon – For reasons set out here.

3) Amanda S Green – Basically a stream of consciousness only tangentially related to SF that is randomly peppered with the letters SJW and GHH.

4) Cedar Sanderson – As above but with extra anti-feminism.

5) David Freer – As above (including literally published on the same blog as Sanderson) but actually insane.

6) Jeffro Johnson – No accessible contribution included in Hugo voter package and I’m not about to go and seek out Puppy work.

If you set out to find the worst fan writing available, you’d probably end up with something like this (and this pattern seems to hold true in Best Related). The Puppies think that not only is this writing not shit, it is the best published in the field in 2014.

 

Katja Czaja

“Hugo Awards: Short Fiction” – May 20

Ranking While I liked “A Single Samurai” and “Totaled”, neither of them are even close to being the best science fiction short story that has come out this year. Oh,Puppies, just because you agree with the message, it does not make the work any less message fiction.

 

Adult Onset Atheist

“SNARL: A Single Samurai” – May 20

At this point –dear readers- I should point out that writing my own reviews allows me to capriciously score the stories that are reviewed. For this story I am going to award a couple of points. I will give this story one star just for having a daikaij?  in it because I dig daikaij?. I will also give it another star for having a Samurai in it because I like the films of Akira Kurosawa.

The Samurai is obsessed with his weapons, and they are magic. The Samurai’s obsession with the weapons even constitutes some of the proof that they are magic.

 

Morag and Erin in Manfeels Park

“New Reading List” (click link to see comic) – May 19

With thanks to James May and Eric Flint

[Quoting the site: “Manfeels Park is an exercise in flogging a pun for all it’s worth. The male dialogue in this webcomic is all taken word for word or adapted only slightly from web commentary by hurt and confused men with Very Important Things To Explain, usually to women. Artistic license is exercised in editing commentary for brevity, spelling and grammar, but the spirit of the original comment is always faithfully observed. Witty rejoinders are also ‘found dialogue’ where possible.”]

 

JJ in a comment on File 770 – May 20

“Freedom’s just another word for no Puppies left to peruse.”

Busted flat in SFF Land, waitin’ for Sasquan,
and I’s feeling nearly’s deprived as can be.
Puppies dumped a dreckload down, the packet’s just arrived.
Full of Puppy message fic for me.

I stayed up too late, reading Goblin Emperor.
And Ancill’ry Sword’s pages, how they flew.
But Butcher’s Skin Game’s mighty hard, it’s taken many nights.
And I’m still not even halfway through.

Freedom’s just another word, for no Puppies left to peruse.
Hugo don’t mean nothin’ honey if I can’t read it.
Yeah, feelin’ good was easy, Lord, when I read Cixin Liu.
You know excellent prose was good enough for me.
But not good enough for the Damn Puppies.

From the shorter-length Novellas, through yet smaller Novelettes,
The Puppies left their territory mark.
Through all of the Short Stories, and through Related Works,
Yeah, Puppies making Hugo’s outlook dark.

One day I’ll be done with this, the deadline’s on the way.
I’m looking for the end of it, and then I’ll be fine.
But I’d trade all of my tomorrows, for one single yesterday,
to be havin’ no more Puppy works in line.

Freedom’s just another word, for no Puppies left to peruse.
Hugo don’t mean nothin’ honey if I can’t read it.
Yeah, feelin’ good was easy, Lord, when I read Cixin Liu.
You know gripping plots were good enough for me.
But not good enough for those Damn Puppies.

 

Nyq in a comment on File 770 – May 20

Nate: “If our authors win… we win. If no award wins… we win. And if you no award everything… we still win.

“And please understand… we will be back next year. The slates aren’t going away. If anything they’ll just merge into one bigger more powerful slate than the two that dominated this year.”

SOory it is more complicated that:

  • If No Award wins a category with an ODD number of votes then we win. (this will invoke a subcommittee to then determine who ‘we’ are)
  • If No Award wins with a prime number of votes you win but only if rule 1 doesn’t apply.
  • If No Award wins everything then you lose UNLESS you throw a number greater than 7 on a D20.
  • If Vox Day wins a category then you lose because the “we all voted ironically” rule comes in play.
  • If John C Wright wins a category then the “its opposite day” rule comes into effect.
  • If one of the secret-SJW-ninja candidates win then you lose. The secret-SJW-ninjas have infiltrated the puppy nominess and have ensured some of the nominated works contain subliminal messages advocating social justice.
  • If John Scalzi wins then George RR Martin wins based on the “but those guys weren’t even nominated” rule.
  • Alexandra Erin has already won.
  • The Roland Barthes Memorial Hugo Award for post-structuralist reading will go to whoever wins in the arm wrestling contest between Vox Day and Theodore Beale.

Other rules and winning conditions available on request.

Rules subject to change.

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

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

  1. >> 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.>>

    I don’t know why I should care whether you’ve been critical of her or not; I haven’t opined one way or the other on whether you have. No offense, but it’s not relevant to anything I was saying.

    >> What would happen if we went over to the Puppies (as you put it)?>>

    No, that’s not how I put it.

    >> I don’t know. Would you like to try?>>

    I think you should feel free to try if you like. As I noted, I think it would probably get you a better picture of whether there is a coherent definition, and if so whether they’re applying it with any accuracy. But I think that you’re a bit too ready to suggest others do work to get somewhere you think (or purport to think) might be worth going. If you think it’s worthwhile, you should probably lead by example, rather than cheerleading for others to do it.

    >> 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?” >>

    Feel free to give it a try, and see what kind of response you get.

    Me, I like the cat thing, and so, apparently does JJ. So that’s two of us. It’s a start toward consensus-building, at least.

    If you have trouble getting the Puppies to adopt the definition you’re offering, we’ll welcome you to our consensus, though. Anyone who wants to go with the cat definition is welcome.

  2. Brian

    1. If you wanted to understand the usage of slurs or epithets, would you limit yourself to just asking meanings from the people it was targeted to, and once you had responses, would you then tell them, “Hey, you know those guys calling you this? Why don’t you see if your meaning and theirs differs?”

    2. If so, why?

    3. Why is this better than you crossing the wall and getting the meanings from both sides? Why do you feel the need to ask others to do your legwork for you?

    Brian, I’d appreciate an answer to the 3 questions above.

  3. Also, given a choice between:

    Brian’s definition of SJW = “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.”

    and

    Kurt’s definition of SJW = “People who own Siamese cats.”

    I believe the latter is more rational and accurate. 3 people – we’re officially a crowd now!

  5. Kurt,

    I don’t know why I should care whether you’ve been critical of her or not; I haven’t opined one way or the other

    Fine. I mentioned it because you said “I’ve read other material by Paulk in which she does not come across as as saintly as you apparently choose to believe,” and of course I’ve seen that other stuff too, but maybe that was pedantic.

    If you have trouble getting the Puppies to adopt the definition you’re offering, we’ll welcome you to our consensus, though. Anyone who wants to go with the cat definition is welcome.

    You don’t seem to be getting my point. Yes, I could go talk to them, and I might, or might not, get responses that are to my satisfaction. But I’m not the one here who needs satisfaction – the people who are feeling hurt and angry do. And those people saying “its the cat definition” is neither here nor there. Does it make any sense?

  6. >> I believe the latter is more rational and accurate. 3 people – we’re officially a crowd now!>>

    Woohoo! We’re on a roll!

    My definition, in addition to being simple, clear and easy to understand, is also a definition, while Brian’s never actually defines “SJW.” It’s got a definition of “social justice” (but apparently defines it as a verb), mentions a subset of that verb who are people, not verbs, and then at the end mentions the term SJW but only to offer a little usage history.

    It doesn’t leave the reader clear on what an SJW is at all, as far as I can tell, though the Puppies Brian proposes to ask what they think may get something different out of it than I do.

    My definition, though, is very clear. I think that’s a strong advantage.

  8. Brian Z.: “Yes, I could go talk to them, and I might, or might not, get responses that are to my satisfaction. But I’m not the one here who needs satisfaction.”

    I can’t imagine why you think someone here going to talk to them would result in “satisfaction”. The only such satisfaction the Puppies would be able to provide me would be a heartfelt assurance from every single one of them that they will never again attempt to game the Hugo nominations. Not that I’d believe them if they actually said this — far too many of them have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be utterly unreliably narrators.

    And I am perfectly well aware that they would never, as a group, agree to such a thing. So what purpose would me going over there to talk to them serve, apart from getting me roundly abused, and wasting my time?

    If you think it’s a good idea, then go do it yourself.

    Brian, stop trying to tell everyone else here what we should do.

    We are all intelligent adults and perfectly capable of independent thought and decision making, and your continual concern-trolling is annoying and offensive.

  9. ETA snowcrash I decided to leave a modicum of snark in here rather than ruthlessly edit it out – I hope you are not offended!

    If you wanted to understand the usage of slurs or epithets, would you limit yourself to just asking meanings from the people it was targeted to, and once you had responses, would you then tell them, “Hey, you know those guys calling you this? Why don’t you see if your meaning and theirs differs?”

    1. This particular flavor of epithet emerged on the left, to use against the left, specifically against the Judean People’s Front. Wait, we’re the Judean People’s Front. They’re the Popular Front. If we can’t understand it, who could?

    2. Isn’t defining terms a useful building block for having a discussion? Or is that out now because Aristotle did it?

    If so, why?

    Because we have a conflict in our community and there are various reasons (which we’ve debated and can again) why engagement and conversation about we value what we do has the best shot at being an effective solution.

    Why do you feel the need to ask others to do your legwork for you?

    I’ve done some legwork (ML, for example). But also, see my response to Kurt above.

  11. >> You don’t seem to be getting my point. Yes, I could go talk to them, and I might, or might not, get responses that are to my satisfaction. But I’m not the one here who needs satisfaction – the people who are feeling hurt and angry do.>>

    I don’t think I agree. This is a course of action you seem to want very much, because you keep pushing for it.

    I don’t think that most of the people the Puppies have been attacking and insulting are really looking for satisfaction in the form of a definition. I don’t think a definition would give them satisfaction, and as I’ve noted before, I don’t think they’d get a consistent definition the Puppies would thereafter follow even if they did.

    You, on the other hand, seem to think it would lead somewhere wonderful. If you do, then pursue it, rather than asking others to pursue it because you insist they need satisfaction and you insist that this is the way to get it.

    If you really think so, show them by doing it. Perhaps then you’ll be the agent of their satisfaction, and will bring peace to a troubled fandom. But I don’t think it will be very effective to say that because you think this will get good results, people who don’t share your beliefs should act on your beliefs. They’re your beliefs, Brian — go with them. Test them. Show the world, man, show the world.

    >> And those people saying “its the cat definition” is neither here nor there.>>

    Four of us now. It’s picking up steam.

    >> Does it make any sense? >>

    Absolutely. You either own one or more Siamese cats or you don’t. Boom. Simple. Sensible. You ask the question, “Is this person an SJW?” and bam, you’ve got an answer.

  12. My definition, in addition to being simple, clear and easy to understand, is also a definition,

    Kurt, I didn’t define it. I said I’d ask them for their definition.

    I can only understand the social justice movement in its historical context, the more recent ascendance of CRT, and the fact that a derogatory term for other lefties that appeared on the internet something like a decade ago. Haven’t you ever heard of two people reaching agreement on terms of discussion by first thinking about what the term means to your and then talking about that with the other person?

    Brian, stop trying to tell everyone else here what we should do.

    JJ you have said unequivocally that you don’t care in the slightest what they think and wouldn’t believe what they told you, so I definitely won’t suggest again that you might be interested in talking to them. OK?

  14. >> I said I’d ask them for their definition.>>

    Good, we’re in agreement, since I suggested you do that a while ago. Godspeed, young man.

    But you might want to ask them about the cat definition too, because it’d be a good building block for having a discussion. We’d have no trouble in moving forward, identifying SJWs, investigating their Hugo participation, maybe even running surveys in CAT FANCY magazine to get some hard data.

  15. You either own one or more Siamese cats or you don’t. Boom. Simple. Sensible. You ask the question, “Is this person an SJW?” and bam, you’ve got an answer.

    I pasted that into Google Translate and selected “SJWese” and got

    Du antingen egna en eller flera siameser eller om du inte gör det. Boom. Enkel.

    I had accidentally clicked “Swedish.” So I tried again and got:

    I don’t give a damn what Puppies of any flavor think. I won’t have a conversation with them, not even if they have toned down the rhetoric I find offensive. They are not welcome in my Fandom.

    Can you help me correct any part of the translation that is not an accurate characterization of your views?

  16. Brian:

    1. This particular flavor of epithet emerged on the left, to use against the left,

    But query for a definition touched on the current usage, which is in use by the Puppies / Gamergate/ various other Redpill fellow travellers. If you’re looking for historical definitions, well, what’s the relevance to the Puppies, and why would a non-Pup seek clarification from them on the historical meaning.

    2. It is, but why when asking about a slur, do you seek to limit yourself to the targets, and not to those using the slur?

    3. Making Light would not be the appropriate venue to ask Puppies. If you’re referring to your following statement

    But I’m not the one here who needs satisfaction – the people who are feeling hurt and angry do ,

    i. You’re the one who seems to be very keen on defining what the exact meaning of a particular slur is.

    ii. Please don’t ever feel the need to tell people who are hurt and angry what they need to do. In fact, don’t even feel the need to assume that they are hurt or angry.

    I don’t know about others, but when it comes to slurs, that I am called that is enough. I don’t need to know the explanation or the accuracy (!) of the terms. And I don’t need someone telling me what my reaction or catharsis needs to be.

    Brian, for venues to ask your queries, I suggest Brad’s blog – some people there seem nice enough.

  17. >> I pasted that into Google Translate and selected “SJWese”>>

    That’s wild. My Google Translate doesn’t offer SJWese. Could you post some screen shots of how you got there, so we can all see how to do it?

    >> Can you help me correct any part of the translation that is not an accurate characterization of your views? >>

    Sure. First off, don’t try to translate it into SJWese, since I don’t own any Siamese cats.

    As such, here’s the correct translation:

    “You either own one or more Siamese cats or you don’t. Boom. Simple. Sensible. You ask the question, ‘Is this person an SJW?’ and bam, you’ve got an answer.”

    As you can see, the definition itself would have guided you, since if you’d applied it, you wouldn’t have wasted time trying to translate into SJWese. You’d have had a simple, clear answer.

    Have you gone to ask the Puppies about their definition yet, like you said you would? It might bring you satisfaction — maybe even a satisfaction you could offer to others, like beignets.

  18. Brian Z.: “I pasted that into Google Translate and got ‘I don’t give a damn what Puppies of any flavor think. I won’t have a conversation with them, not even if they have toned down the rhetoric I find offensive. They are not welcome in my Fandom’.”

    Oh, now you’re just repeating yourself, Brian. You already bragged about being a graduate of the Brad R. Torgersen School Of Putting In Other Peoples’ Mouths Words They’ve Never Actually Said in that other thread (although, to be fair, you never mentioned that you’d majored in Passive Aggression).

    Really, didn’t your parents teach you that it’s not seemly to brag about your education?

  19. don’t ever feel the need to tell people who are hurt and angry what they need to do

    snowcrash, there have been a lot of comments to the effect of “I’m hurt and angry” so I’m not singling anybody out, most certainly not you.

    I’m not telling anyone what to do. (Shouldn’t that be obvious?) If you couldn’t care less what “puppies” think, fine. I said was that would be a possible way to figure out what they are trying to say.

  20. Oh come on JJ, Kurt passed along some snark so I answered with snark. But I’ll just it off unilaterally now.

  21. What snark? I’m completely serious. You didn’t think it would be that hard to settle on a definition, and I agree. Let’s settle on mine. If nothing else, it offers elegant ease of use and clear answers.

    Anyway, you said you’d ask the Puppies for their definition. Maybe they’ll come up with something as clear and definitive, but I’m doubtful. But we’ll see when you report back.

  22. Brian Z.: “I’m not telling anyone what to do. (Shouldn’t that be obvious?)”

    What is obvious is that at least 3 people on this page have just told you to stop trying to tell other people what to do. So clearly you are telling people what to do, no matter how much you pretend that you’re not doing so.

    Brian Z.: “If you couldn’t care less what “puppies” think, fine. I said was that would be a possible way to figure out what they are trying to say.”

    In several pages of posts now, it would appear that you are the only person here who is trying to figure out what the Puppies are trying to say. Since it is clearly of great importance, to you, why aren’t you over on the Puppy blogs doing so?

    Brian Z.: “Oh come on JJ, Kurt passed along some snark so I answered with snark. But I’ll just it off unilaterally now.”

    Poow widdle oppwessed Brian. If you don’t want to deal with snark, then I strongly suggest you cease and desist with the nasty, passive aggressive comments such as those you’ve made in several places on this page. Otherwise, you deserve every bit of snark that you get.

  23. Kurt Busiek, I thought you were being snarky, and rather enjoyed it, so I started feeling snarky myself. But if that’s not it, I don’t understand your purpose in making these points.

    You don’t, apparently, mean to say that you are interested in a building consensus with the parties within fandom you disagree with.

    Were people interested in building consensus, it would make sense for both sides to articulate their perspectives, with some person or group actually going back and forth to be a facilitator and work on defining and re-framing the conflicts.

    Failing that, I’m not sure I see the point of having a conversation about it. Sorry to waste your time.

  24. JJ, sometimes receiving snark on a comment thread can be fun, so I generally don’t mind it. No worries.

  25. I’m not telling anyone what to do. (Shouldn’t that be obvious?) If you couldn’t care less what “puppies” think, fine. I said was that would be a possible way to figure out what they are trying to say.

    Brian, when you say thing’s like “But I’m not the one here who needs satisfaction – the people who are feeling hurt and angry do”, you’re pretty much telling those people what they should be doing.

    Also, on your attempts at snark, please look-up the failure mode of clever.

    Finally Brian, I’d appreciate if you respond to the rest of my queries to you in my last post.

  26. >> Kurt Busiek, I thought you were being snarky, and rather enjoyed it, so I started feeling snarky myself. But if that’s not it, I don’t understand your purpose in making these points.>>

    To settle on a definition, like you asked.

    >> You don’t, apparently, mean to say that you are interested in a building consensus with the parties within fandom you disagree with.>>

    I think my definition would be a useful building block.

    But I think you have some words in the wrong order. If I were to be interested in a building consensus, that could be a consensus about buildings or a consensus that builds on its own. I suspect that’s not what you meant, though.

    I don’t think there’s much likelihood of building a consensus with people who, as far as I can tell, have no interest whatsoever in any consensus at all with people they disagree with, and can’t really manage much consensus with each other.

    You apparently think it’s very possible and worth pursuing, as long as the only places you try to pursue it are here and at Making Light. I’ve suggested you pursue this goal you see as worthwhile and reachable — and you even said you’d ask the Puppies for their definitions — and I still think you should. Put your beliefs in action. Don’t be shy, don’t push others to do what you see such possibility in; lead the way yourself! Think of the credit you’ll get from both sides as a broker of peace when all about you thought it impossible!

    >> Were people interested in building consensus, it would make sense for both sides to articulate their perspectives, with some person or group actually going back and forth to be a facilitator and work on defining and re-framing the conflicts.>>

    The strange thing, though, is that you don’t seem to want both sides to articulate their perspectives. You want what you see as one side to articulate the other side’s perspective, something you’re completely unwilling to ask of the other side. And you are the person most enthusiastic about a facilitator, which I think makes you the logical person for the job.

    >> Failing that, I’m not sure I see the point of having a conversation about it. Sorry to waste your time.>>

    If I were you, I wouldn’t give up on that consensus building dream, not after having only asked one side about it — and at that, you’ve asked the side that doesn’t even have a name or an organizing principle, so it’s more of a random sampling than a movement or organization. Why not go ask the side that thinks of themselves as a side first? Surely, what with them being opposed to so much of what this “side” thinks, they’ll be eager to prove us wrong by building consensus with us, and will define all the terms you want. They’ll even tell you what they think we think, I bet, at length and in a variety of ways that may not even match up.

    I think you’d only be letting yourself down if you quit, especially after you said you’d ask them for their definition. Don’t short-sheet your own potential! Seize the bull — the puppy — by the horns and build that consensus!

    Have some faith in yourself, man! It’s a great day to be Irish!

  27. snowcrash, let me assure you, please, that I have no wish to tell anybody what to do, and if you read my comment that way, that must have been my failure to express myself clearly.

    “why when asking about a slur, do you seek to limit yourself to the targets, and not to those using the slur?”

    In what sense am I limiting myself to “targets”? I’m pondering a question aloud in a public forum that has lots of different people stopping by. Any of them, subject to approval of the moderator of course, are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

    “Making Light – legwork.” I disagreed with their perspective, so I went there and listened to them and offered my own ideas. Does that not count because they are not “Puppies”? Then I haven’t done any legwork.

    “I don’t know about others, but when it comes to slurs, that I am called that is enough.”

    For me understanding how slurs originated and evolved over time is interesting, which is why I was talking about it, but sure, it isn’t interesting to everybody, that’s fine.

    snowcrash, I hope I answered the questions you wanted.

  28. When a man is being labeled by other people, do you go to that man and insist that he define the names he is being called?

    If you are that curious about what the people doing the labeling mean by the terms they use, aren’t they the logical people to ask?

    Indeed, does not pressing the victim to define the terms others have used to define him read to you as a further act of abuse?

  29. snowcrash:

    Does your dictionary show the same definitions for “mealy-mouthed” that mine does?

  30. Kurt,

    And you are the person most enthusiastic about a facilitator, which I think makes you the logical person for the job.

    Thank you for that vote of confidence! If only I had more standing in the community! Maybe a few Hugo nominations! 😀

  31. You could blog your efforts as you go, and that could lead to a nomination next year!

    I don’t think having a lot of nominations already would help. John Scalzi has a lot, and John C. Wright got a slew of them this year, but I don’t think either of them is likely to be seen as an ideal go between.

    But you are as unmarked clay! Go thou, and build a legend!

    Just check on the cat thing as you go, because once consensus is built, it’ll be nice to know who is and isn’t a Siamese cat owner, for the data crunching.

  32. Kurt Busiek: “it’ll be nice to know who is and isn’t a Siamese cat owner, for the data crunching”

    Do you think we could convince Sasquan to add that as a tickbox to the Hugo ballot, then after the awards ceremony release all the individual ballots with ID stripped off? You know, for data crunching, to see if there’s actually a Sekrit Siameze Catbal which has been rigging the Hugo voting?

  33. Peace, you know very well that in no sense whatsoever is having a conversation about the evolving meanings of the term “SJW” in a public comment thread on File 770 “insisting a man define” anything. Nor asking “the people labelled” anything.

    Since this is a public forum, “anybody reading this thread” is of course welcome to contribute their thoughts, as you have just done.

  34. Shame on you, Peace! You are very well aware that “long-term, repeated concern-trolling” =/= “insisting” !

  35. Brian Z on May 23, 2015 at 4:41 am said:

    Peace, you know very well that in no sense whatsoever is having a conversation about the evolving meanings of the term “SJW” in a public comment thread on File 770 “insisting a man define” anything. Nor asking “the people labelled” anything.

    Since this is a public forum, “anybody reading this thread” is of course welcome to contribute their thoughts, as you have just done.

    Brian Z, the term is an obnoxious insult coined to put down and used by a hostile group against everyone they hate.

    Why the hell would I or anyone outside of their little cabal have any interest in parsing what they could possibly mean by it? Why should we waste our time spending our time focused on them and trying to read their minds when you could just ask them and satisfy your curiosity?

    If you want to know, go ask them. It’s their word. It’s their concept.

  36. Brian, I think both your writing as well as reading needs to be clearer.
    You’re limiting yourself to “targets ” by mostly asking people who have been targeted by an epithet,instead of including or asking in meaningful terms those using it.

    Brian, you’re interest in the etymology of the phrase rather than the current usage is very, very new. I hesitate to call it shifting goalposts, as I usually do not assign to malice what can be adequately called incompetence. Perhaps again, this is you writing poorly. If so, please do take more care, I know you can write enter than this.

    On what you did at ML – you’re right. It isn’t legwork at all. Like I said, try Brad’s blog, it’s alright. As Kurt says, go forth and build your legend! Let it be your first step!

  37. JJ “Does your dictionary show the same definitions for “mealy-mouthed” that mine does?”

    I dunno man, it’s all Greek to me

  38. JJ – might be worth bring up at the business meeting.

    But probably not ’til after Brian has built consensus, so the WSFS will know it’s a worthwhile pursuit.

  40. snowcrash, I hope you can see that in no sense is it the case that by posting my comments here I was pressing only “targets” of the term “SJW” to define what it means. It was coined by the left, and VD’s recent usage of it on File 770 (see: the “SJWs always lie” schtick) is also derived from that original usage on the left; he accuses leftists of being insincere. If I were writing a newspaper article on the controversy, I suppose I could go around to interview Torgersen, Correia, et al and press each of them for a definition for my story. But I’m not. Instead, I was wondering in an open discussion how much agreement there is about the term.

  41. Ooh! Snowcrash! Let me go get my ball! I think the goalposts have now been shifted so much, I can stand in one endzone and throw a touchdown to myself in the other endzone!

  42. Brian: I hope you can see that in no sense is it the case that by posting my comments here I was pressing only “targets” of the term “SJW” to define what it means.

    No I can’t see that, and no one else who has responded can see that either. AFAIK, you’ve only been posting that query here, and you’ve only been directing that question in your replies to non-Puppies. Ergo….

    It was coined by the left, and VD’s recent usage of it on File 770 (see: the “SJWs always lie” schtick) is also derived from that original usage on the left; he accuses leftists of being insincere

    Do you know that? Has he explained his usage and definition? Was he rhetorical? Or are you only guessing?

    I ask as you kicked this off by seeking a current definition, so that indicates that you don’t know. If you don’t know what Day meant, I suggest you ask him. I hear he has a blog somewhere. But I would suggest saving it for the end of your second arc – it’s more Campbellian then.

    The fate of many Siamese cat owners depends on you.

    JJ – WtF? Touchdown? Endzone? I thought this was a soccer match. Did we change games without telling me?

  43. snowcrash: “WtF? Touchdown? Endzone? I thought this was a soccer match. Did we change games without telling me?”

    Do try to keep up, snowcrash. We’ve not only changed games, we’ve picked up the goalposts, shipped them across the ditch, and reinstalled them in a stadium in the Colonies.

  44. AFAIK, you’ve only been posting that query here, and you’ve only been directing that question in your replies to non-Puppies. Ergo.

    snowcrash, if you are nonpuppy and have a problem with me talking about this to nonpuppies, your wish would come true faster if you stopped asking me about it.

    If you would like me to give equal time to puppies, I promise that if any puppies who have clambered up onto this blog would like to comment, I will give them as much consideration as I have given you. Fair?

  45. Except Brian, that answer *still* doesn’t answer why you’ve been directing this, and most of your queries here to non-Puppies. Have you engaged with Puppies/ Puppy-adjacents like GK or Nate or Moss in the same way that you do with others here?

    If not, have you asked yourself why?

    Tell you what Brian. Be clearer in both what you are asking, and who you are asking. You’ve already shifted on both grounds in the last page alone. Also, puppies can be found! I’ve given you a couple of pointers already – Brad first, Day next, THEN THE WORLD!

    Go forth Brian, and conquer all before you with your questions and queries and quicksand!

  46. GK, Nate, and Moss are all here and if they have a contribution I’m very glad to hear it. Vox Day reads this and he could answer if he wants. I’m not seeing your point.

  47. Brian

    GK, Nate, and Moss are all here and if they have a contribution I’m very glad to hear it. Vox Day reads this and he could answer if he wants. I’m not seeing your point.

    Again with the lack of reading comprehension. Go back and re-read my post. It’s right above yours. Break it down into sentences if you have to, and approach it individually in that manner. Do the same for my earlier post at 5.55am as well, I believe you left out the entire latter half.

    Also, I thought you were going to go forth and ask the Puppies – have you decided where as of yet?

  48. JJ on May 23, 2015 at 4:41 am said:

    Kurt Busiek: “it’ll be nice to know who is and isn’t a Siamese cat owner, for the data crunching”

    Do you think we could convince Sasquan to add that as a tickbox to the Hugo ballot, then after the awards ceremony release all the individual ballots with ID stripped off?

    It is, alas, too late to ask Sasquan. We’d have to submit the request to MAC II for next year at this point.

    I want a panel for Siamese Cat owners, though. It might not be too late to have one of those at Sasquan. Kurt, will you be there? You can moderate!

  49. snowcrash, what is making you so angry? that I’m open to having a conversation with anyone? that I’m acting as if File 770 is an open forum where everyone is welcome to participate? I’m missing it.

  50. Brian, your poetry was lovely and you do, IMO, contribute positively to the discussion at times. I don’t want you to go away. But right now you’re concern trolling and sealioning. Not to mention your evidently nonexistent goal posts. I don’t appreciate it. That’s why I’m getting cranky. I can’t speak for snowcrash.

Comments are closed.