Black Gate’s withdrawal from the Hugos may have been too late to change the ballot, but was just in time to provide fresh evidence of the social cost of this controversy.
George R.R. Martin says he still doesn’t agree with their advice to vote No Award.
Otherwise, appropriate to a Sunday, there was preaching to the choir all over the internet.
Alexandra Erin from a collected series of tweets on Storify
“Why do book recommendations make Sad Puppies sad” – April 10
If I say “I want to read more feminist SF” or “I want to read more books with queer protagonists”, I didn’t *forget* about quality. Or fun.
Any more than I would have forgotten those things if I said “I want to read more military SF.”
The selective failure to understand this very simple point is what fuels the perpetual outrage machine that keeps the Sad Puppies sad.
https://twitter.com/WCBauers/status/589830995098009600
David Gerrold on Facebook – April 19
2) The narrative about the sad-rabids has crystallized. As more than one analyst has pointed out, the sad-rabid position is based on a misreading of history and a misunderstanding of fandom — a failure to understand the context into which they are speaking. While the slate-mongering is technically legal, it violates the spirit of fairness. As a result, they have made themselves a focus of fannish anger. Never a good thing. A growing majority of fans are seeing this situation as the efforts of a small group of extremists to take over something that has previously belonged to all fans, ie. an attempted coup.
The short-term result here is anger. That will pass. Not soon enough, but it will. The long-term result will be that anyone too closely identified with the sad-rabids, anyone who benefited from this slate-mongering, anyone who did not publicly withdraw, will be indelibly tainted. Fans have long memories. Some grudges in fandom date back to the universe that existed before the big bang. Harlan, for instance, is still working on grudges from the twelfth century…B.C.
Those who have been tainted will find that they have put unnecessary obstacles in their own paths. There are editors who will not want the stink that certain authors will be tracking with them. There are conventions that will not invite them to be on panels. There are awards they can never be considered for, lest others wonder if there was a political agenda at work. There are websites and fanzines and podcasts that will choose not to interview them — conversely, there will be others that will interview them for their perspective on the situation, stirring the shit one more time and spreading it just a little more.
Paul Weimer on Blog, Jvstin Style
“2 Corinthians 6:14 and othering: Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies and SJWs” – April 19
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14 (KJV)
This Story on Hullabaloo got me thinking about the conflict in SFF Fandom lately regarding the Hugos and all sides.
There is a hell of a lot of “othering” going on, and yes, its not limited to one side, or even predominantly one side. There is also the perception of othering on BOTH sides that probably exceeds the actual amount going on.
Larry, Brad and Sad Puppies see themselves as being treated as pariahs and outsiders by the Worldcon crowd. Part of that perception, whether its ex post facto, perception only, or really there just amplifies itself on the Internet. Similarly, the other side (which I am going to call SJW, just because its easier) sees many right wing authors and people as being beyond the pale, unworthy or impossible to engage with, and sparks fly on that side.
Kevin Standlee
“2015 Business Meeting Updates” – April 19
The meeting is not secret. The only restriction on non-members attending is capacity. We will be officially recording the meeting, and we will upload those recordings to YouTube as soon as bandwidth allows. That doesn’t mean instantaneously. It will probably take several hours at least to pull the recordings out of the camera, convert them to the correct format, and upload them, even on a decently high-speed connection. There is currently no plan to live-stream the meeting, although this could change, as the new camera Lisa just bought does appear to have outputs that might be able to feed to something that could send the feed out live.
My reading of the WSFS Constitution is that the Business Meeting, besides being the only required event at a Worldcon (Site Selection isn’t an “event” in my formulation, and the Hugo Ceremony isn’t required) outside of stuff about MPC meetings and other minor trivia, is also the only event at a Worldcon where we’re not allowed to refuse entry to any qualified member who wants to attend. Even the Hugo Awards Ceremony can turn people away if the room overflows, but the Business Meeting cannot do so because it would violate the members’ rights under our rules. This of course has never been an issue before and it’s rare that more than about 2% of the qualified members want to attend. This year is looking so weird right now that we cannot as yet make an estimate of actual attendance with much confidence. Thus the currently booked room (300B) is subject to change, possibly on short notice due to changed circumstances. No change is intended maliciously, and any change on short notice at the convention will be publicized to the best of the convention’s ability to do so.
Kevin Standlee
“NPR Reports on Puppygate” – April 18
…Incidentally, after declining from the initial huge spike on Finalist Announcement Day, it appears that traffic to TheHugoAwards.org is still running at more than quadruple the pre-announcement levels. April 2015 will be the busiest month in the history of the web site, exceeding the traffic from last August. I am so glad that we changed site hosts last month. Our previous host was warning us that we were already approaching traffic levels well above what they were prepared to handle, which was why we moved. If we hadn’t done so, I expect that our old host would have started blocking calls to the site entirely.
PZ Myers on Freethought Blogs
“The things you learn about the sf community” – April 19
I have to hand it to those goons who made up a slate of ‘conservative’ science fiction and slammed it into the Hugo nominations: I’d had this vague assumption that science fiction fans would be generally progressive and tolerant and even enthusiastic about different ideas. The Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies have enlightened and disillusioned me.
Indiana on Indi in the Wired
“How right wing bigots are ruining science fiction” – April 19
Unfortunately, Day’s logically absurd and transparently self-serving tactic actually worked. You see, it’s never taken many votes to skew the Hugos. It would have just taken the subtlest nudge for Day to get his own stable of writers well-represented… but “subtle” is probably lost on people like that.
And while there have certainly been campaigns for specific works in the past, and lists of suggested works of course, never before has there been a situation where one group has set up a slate designed to clog up the nominations with their own shit, and block out other nominees. That’s really where the problem lies: though they technically broke no rules, they twisted the process to hurt other writers, rather than to merely promote works they liked. The “Sad Puppies” slate was not designed to put their favourite works on the nomination list (where they could then compete fairly with other works), it was specifically designed to keep the works of those they were ideologically opposed to off the list.
All Things Considered on National Public Radio
“Hugo Awards Highlight Scarcity of Women Minorities in Science Fiction” – April 19, 2015
NPR’s Arun Rath talks to author Monica Byrne about how controversy surrounding this year’s Hugo Awards highlights a lack of women and minority speculative fiction authors.
George R.R. Martin on Not A Blog
“Black Gate Withdraws” – April 19
BLACK GATE is advocating the nuclear option: vote NO AWARD in all categories. I understand his reasoning, but once more, I disagree. I will vote NO AWARD only in those categories where I find nothing in the category worthy of a Hugo. If I think a book or story or editor IS worthy of a Hugo, I’m going to vote to award one.
The Hugos can withstand a few NO AWARDs, in categories where all the nominees are crap. They can NOT withstand an entire evening without a single rocket being presented, where one envelope after another is ripped open and NO AWARD is announced, again and again and again.
And as flawed and damaged as this ballot is, there ARE things on it deserving of our field’s ultimate accolade. Starting with BEST NOVEL, the Big One, where I know there is at least one Hugo-calibre book, and suspect there may be as many as three, or even four. Or BEST FAN WRITER, where Laura Mixon’s report on Requires Hate cries out for recognition. There are some terrific movies in Dramatic Presentation, Long Form. We missed PREDESTINATION, which deserved a nod, but we did get INTERSTELLAR, which I rank up there with 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. There are editors on the ballot deserving of recognition (no, not him, obviously), there’s an artist (maybe more than one, but one for sure), there’s a bunch of fine fan artists…
Tom Smith on Patreon
“New Song: ‘Sad Puppies (Aren’t Much Fun)'”
[Excerpt]
All their plots, all their hooks,
But no one nominated their books,
Sad puppies never won.
Jo Lindsay Walton on All That Is Solid Melts into Aargh
“Happy Puppies” – April 8
[Another helpful suggestion for changing the system used to Hugo nominees…]
Or. Embrace war. Create a system that celebrates and encourages tactics, which does not try to suppress or mask our political differences but magnifies and elaborates them. Perhaps instead of a ballot you have a “deck” or “team” in which you choose your books, stories, films etc. and can also assign them various powers, tools, weapons, factional alliances, behaviours. Instead of simply counting, the whole battle or adventure or whatever plays out on a ginormous screen at the awards ceremony, accompanied by some pretty serious atmosphere. Update: a very simple bare bones example …
Each nominator gets four slots in each category. They’re not ranked, exactly, but they are classed. It might be:
BEST NOVEL Hedgehog: 25 HP, +5 damage vs. witch Dalek: 25 HP, +5 damage vs. hedgehog Witch: 25 HP, +5 damage vs. dalek Mithril Mech: 30 HP, begins in herald slot
… so for best novel, my ballot might look like this:
Hedgehog: Jeff VanderMeer, Southern Reach Dalek: Cixin Liu, The Three Body Problem Witch: Adam Roberts, Bete MM: Ann Leckie, Ancillary Sword
With each round of voting, each party is randomly paired with another. If the heralds are the same (i.e. in round one, if my ballot encounters another Ancillary Sword mithril mech) then both ballots survive intact and unchanged into the next round. Otherwise, a champion is randomly selected from the non-herald party members of each ballot.
Then:
(1) if the champions happen to be the same (e.g. my Southern Reach bumps into another Southern Reach) then the champions move into the heralds slots, but no damage is inflicted, and both ballots survive otherwise unaltered into the next round.
(2) otherwise, both nominations take damage according to their class. For example, say my Southern Reach hedgehog gets paired against a John Scalzi Lock In dalek. My nomination loses fifteen Hit Points, and the Lock In nomination loses ten (my quills aren’t much use against the dalek’s armour plating and selfie-stick).
Nominations that have fallen to zero Hit Points are eliminated, and a new round begins.
The cycle continues until all except five novels have been eliminated, comprising the short list.
Each nominator also receives an automated personalised chronicle of their ballot’s encounters and deeds. Nominators may also opt to make their ballot non-anonymous, so that their names come up in the battle reports of other nominators with whom they have friendly or warlike encounters. (“I literally met Hoyt in the fourth round! Her Correia Witch kicked my Leckie Dalek’s ass.”)
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I wish things would stop happening. I want to look away. I’m trying to look away…
I CAN’T LOOK AWAY!! (sob)
Two things: massive kudos on Black Gate to do the honourable thing. Also equally massive kudos to Kevin Standlee and all the other Worldcon/WSFW/Hugo Awards volunteers for dealing so well with what has to be a massively stressfull situation.
@Laura, I feel your pain, for it is mine.
@Our Host: I’ve been loving your post titles; this one may be the best!
David Gerrold writes:
>anyone too closely identified with the sad-rabids, anyone who benefited from this slate-mongering, anyone who did not publicly withdraw, will be indelibly tainted. Fans have long memories. (…)
Those who have been tainted will find that they have put unnecessary obstacles in their own paths. There are editors who will not want the stink that certain authors will be tracking with them. There are conventions that will not invite them to be on panels. There are awards they can never be considered for, lest others wonder if there was a political agenda at work. There are websites and fanzines and podcasts that will choose not to interview them <
—-
There it is, clearly spelled for anyone who wishes to see it. This kind of tactics, although rarely so plainly spoken, has been used in the last few years against any thoughtcriminal who is not willing to at least keep silent. Sad Puppies was started by a group of people who said "this is not right, and we are not willing to be silenced. We just do not care about your petty threats."
What a hate-filled man.
Mike: that Jo Walton post you link to is by Jo Lindsay Walton, rather than the novelist Jo Walton.
Martin: Thanks for catching that.
AG: Tactics? No, just human reaction. If I see someone pissing in the punch bowl at a party, I would think twice before working with him. And I would certainly never invite him to one of my own parties unless he really apologized first.
Now, you say that this “tactics” has been used against thoughtcriminals the last year. Could you please give us examples and how they have affected the Hugos? And could you please tell us why you use the term “thoughtcriminal” when it is clearly the *actions* of the puppies people object to?
‘What a hate-filled man.’
When they SP/RPs decided that they were willing to use tactics that wouldn’t win them many fans, they really didn’t think it through.
@Hampus Eckerman:
Tactics, human reaction… Call it what you want, the end result is the same. It’s exactly the kind of human reaction that Sarah Hoyt was speaking about:
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/03/31/the-scarlet-letters/
As I said, it has just got to a point where people no longer care.
AG: And would you try to stop humans to react to the actions of other humans? I think that is futile.
The thing is, you should think through what you are going to do and what the reactions would be *before* acting. I mean, with the reaction against slated voting for previous Hugo and again, reaction to Beale, it should have been obvious that a new slate for ballot voting, hugely impopular, would not win any new friends, but instead loose friends. Even friends among colleagues and possible employees.
To use ballot stuffing to put some one on a nomination list is not a compliment. It is the opposite. It is to say that you don’t think they could get enough votes by their own strength. It is to denigrate them. And people will react to that.
Hoyt just uses hyperbole. She says that everyone to the right of Lenin is seen as conservatives. Does that mean that everyone calling themselves liberals are to be compared to Lenin? Or even to the left of him?? I mean, it is that kind of conspiracy thinking that makes her impossible to take seriously.
George R.R. Martin on Not A Blog has a correction for his reporting of Black Gate’s voting recommendation.
“CORRECTION: It appears that I misread the BLACK GATE withdrawal statement. They are not actually advocating the Nuclear Option. Please read the statement for a correct explanation of how they suggest the use of No Award. We are still in disagreement, I think, but not as complete a disagreement I had thought earlier.”
I am beginning to think that VD is just an uppity submissive crying out for a spanking. He needs a femdom in leather with heels and a strap.
“Tactics, human reaction… Call it what you want, the end result is the same.”
All Gerrold is saying is that actions have consequences. If you do something that angers a lot of people in a community like SF/F fandom, it will have a long-term effect on your reputation.
To use his observation about the future as proof of past mistreatment is a neat trick. You Puppies never tire of smearing the rest of us Hugo voters.
Yes, as we approach the voting, the maskless puppies remain undaunted, and those who masked the secrets, let their masks slip. “Only human” to keep the puppies out. “Only human” to defend the interests of the insiders, regardless of the quality of the work. “Only human” to screech about the rules when the rules are followed.
With humans like these, who needs aliens?
xdpaul:
“Those who masked the secrets”? Is that yet another conspiracy theory in brewing?
I like Jo Lindsay Walton’s creativity.
The factionalism doesn’t seem to be going away. What will happen next year when every single club, website and interest group gets on their soapbox and devises a slate?
Instead of trying to ban or marginalize slates, which might not be very effective, what about a rule governing them? If at least 5% of voters register with any given slate at the time they nominate, the nominee with the most votes in that slate goes on the final ballot. Subject to the 5% of ballots test. Plus the top independent nominee. Next year, Sads and Rabids jump on Seveneves for Best Novel. (Because the moon explodes.) Whovians and GameofThroners both like Terry Pratchett. Independents and Wiscon like Ancillary Mercy. NESFA and Helsinki 2017 like Paolo Bacigalupi’s Water Knife. If not enough slates/winners get the numbers, remaining slots go whatever had the next largest total number of nominations. It might produce a better ballot.
“Those Who Masked the Secrets” would be an excellent title for some Lovecraftian horror.
I for one am thrilled to see so many people who I previously thought of as ideological opponents (I’m a rabid puppy!) openly stating that we do, in fact, share many common opinions.
In particular, the high value of Freedom of association and disassociation. That’s a big one for me, and I’m pleased to see all the people saying they have the right to disassociate, even going so far as to say that it is acceptable to refuse work contracts with people whose thoughts you dislike. I expect we’ll be revisiting this one for quite some time. Tell me, is it enough if I, personally ‘feel’ offended, to refuse a service? Is that the qualifier?
Second, it’s nice to see that the ‘tyranny of the majority’ is agreed by everyone to be bullshit, and nothing more than rhetoric to neuter democratic process. Here, the anti-puppies believe they are in a massive majority (all those fans with long memories), and that that majority gives them the right to exclude Puppy supporters, even going so far as again, to refuse employment. “Actions have consequences”. I look forward to a time when the majority, disliking what it perceives as bad behavior from a minority, shuns that group without any fear of recourse about the minority’s right to speak, think, and act as it desires even against the majority’s interests, in the majority’s presence.
What an exciting time to live in! Tell me more!
Yes, actions do have consequences. RP is the belates result of the Making Light attack on me in March 2005. As for David Gerrold’s belated warning, I heard the same thing from Charles Stress 10 years ago. BFD.
We all know we are personas non Grata. That’s why we are so indifferent to your pointing and shrieking.
“it should have been obvious that a new slate for ballot voting, hugely impopular, would not win any new friends, but instead loose friends.”
We have no friends among you. We are not part of your tiny community. We cannot lose what we did not have.
“When you choose an action, you choose all the consequences of that action.”
–Cordelia Naismith Vorkosigan
Lovecraftian Humor, I’d say, but otherwise completely agree, rcade.
One should not forget, however, that it was not cosmic atrocity that brought H.P. down…but ice cream.
I supposed I should add to Cordelia’s observations, that one chooses all the reasonable results of one’s action.
It’s reasonable to predict if you set out to destry something someone values they won’t want to associate with you any more.
So what is the damage to the Sad (not Rabid) Puppy organizers likely to be? They won’t be asked to certain conventions… they won’t be invited to contribute to certain anthologies… they’ll get the cold shoulder if they go to certain gatherings they probably weren’t planning to attend anyway… but mostly they’re Baen writers, aren’t they? And I have the impression that most of the people who identify as “Baen readers” are either unaware of the SP affair, or are on board with what they’re doing. So as long as they keep writing books that keep that audience satisfied, I don’t see their careers suffering much at all.
Of course, there are some folks who will pick up a Baen or Tor or DAW book indiscriminately, as long as it looks like the kind of thing they like, and these readers may be more likely to have a negative reaction to seeing certain names on covers going forward, but I don’t know how large a slice of Baen’s readership they comprise.
“It’s reasonable to predict if you set out to destroy something someone values they won’t want to associate with you any more.”
~ Ultragotha.
Well, our esteemed leadership (pbut) has not quite put two and two together on this one. But we are in complete agreement. I’ll take it one step further.
If someone sets out to destroy something someone values, that someone not only is reasonable to not want to associate with the destroyer, but is morally and legally right to actively disassociate, and to take necessary steps to prevent future destruction.
Agreed?
Destroy someones “values”? I don’t even know what that means. And it is totally impossible to say if it is “legal to actively disassociate”, whatever that means, based on such a vague description.
Furthermore, it seems quite off topic. Better to discuss on a blog for abstract philosophy.
Oh, correction, you said “destroy something someone value”. Still impossible to say if it is legal or moral to disassociate. It might be that thing that is valued is illegal or immoral from the beginning.
And again, it seems like a discussion that is totally off topic.
Really? You think it’s off topic to discuss the right to disassociate from someone, to the point of rendering them unemployed, in a topic about the right to disassociate with authors who are approved by the wrong people or are employed by the wrong publisher? It seems completely on point, as that’s the larger issue beyond this years’ Hugo: are content creators free to associate with prospective employers and fans as they wish without having their works judged by anything but the merits of the piece?
What I find really amusing is where you say: I don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t understand what you mean, it’s all very vague… but it seems to me like it’s off topic and you shouldn’t talk about it here.
It’s like you have a very dim idea about the concept of throwing out enough shit and hoping something sticks, but can’t quite grasp the need to maintain an internal consistency within a single rhetorical attack.
I’m a fan of Napoleon’s maxim, but sometimes I feel charitable. You should have started by nitpicking my definitions and exclaiming that my writing is hopeless to parse and so makes no sense, and if I come back and get into a semantics battle with you, then you disqualify as off-topic. You tried to do too much in a single offensive.
I think it is off topic to discuss this on an abstract and philosophical level. Especially when you want to talk about legallity. My countries laws are propably not the same as yours, so it is just impossible to discuss on such a simplistic level.
Jim Butcher’s tweet in support of the puppies seems to have been missed in the roundup.
AG – What Gerrold stated is simply business prudence.
Like when a licensed vet in TX got fired from the clinic where she worked after posting a picture of her holding a cat she shot with a bow and arrow bragging “the only good feral is a dead feral”
Why a financial firm a few years ago fired an associate after he posted video of himself harassing a waitress
Why a bunch of law students suddenly found that their offers for employment were withdrawn when they bragged on social media how they were harassing female students at their universities.
All these people thought they were immune to the fact that companies depend on the good will of their patrons, weather that patron is a person with a pet, a client with mucho dollars to invest or a person looking for a reputable person to represent them in a legal matter.
It’s not some “dirty tactic” of Gerrolds to point this out, but simply a case of being aware that what you say publicly can have consequences when those who deal with the public are aware of a possible impact to their business.
“We are not part of your tiny community. We cannot lose what we did not have.”
You’ve put an extraordinary amount of effort into trying to kick your way into the middle of the community, whether you’re welcome or not.
This is the thing I don’t understand. The Sads have a point, even though that’s undermined by the way they’re obviously screening the Rabids. The Rabids just want to annoy. Is it simply because trolling is full of lolz?
No, it’s not. Because laws can change. Laws are not, in and of themselves, moral absolutes.
The discussion of whether or not it is right to blacklist based on an individual’s association is relevant and debatable, even among people living in different jurisdictions. It’s foolish to claim otherwise. It’s also disingenuous, given that nobody has thus far made any mention of their jurisdiction and how that relates to their opinions regarding the puppy slates. It’s especially humorous in light of the “well, it was legal but it was still wrong!” that seems to be the most public reason given for the ‘no award’ counter-slate. We are all for the most part operating on the principle here that rules do not define right and wrong.
And if a science-fiction blog is the wrong place to discuss abstract and philosophical issues moving into the future… well, reason #99 that I’m a rabid puppy.
“RP is the belates result of the Making Light attack on me in March 2005.”
So you’re doing this because somebody hurt your widdle feelings a decade ago? I’m sorry, I thought it was about a secret cabal fixing the Hugo Awards?
But well done all, I had started reading some of the SP/RP stuff with a view to being open minded, even bought a couple of books, but I’m lock step with John O’Neill and Al Reynolds. You can all f right off.
“What an exciting time to live in! Tell me more!”
I know we’re just going to talk past one another here but screw it. Let’s say a pizza parlor chooses not to serve you because you are a white straight male. That’s discrimination. However if the reason they’re not serving you is because you walked in, demanded a pizza right now otherwise you’ll burn their whole store to the ground so that no one else ever gets a pizza again, them choosing not to serve you and other pizza chains being wary of having you as a customer isn’t a result of who you are, but as a result of your own actions.
For the same reason on a resume you have people they can contact for recommendations. A place might not want to hire you if you can’t work well with others.
If a puppy keeps pooping on the rug I’ve got nothing against the puppy, but it’s going to have to go outside until it learns to not poop on others property. It’s not an attack on you to ask you not to stop pooping on the rug. I just really like the rug and respectfully ask you stop crapping on it. Someone else pooped on your rug? Well that sucks. But you’d think that would make you agree that crapping on carpets is bad instead of using that as an excuse to do the same.
This is an exciting time though. No matter what goes on with the Hugo awards with all of the options for publishing now and how diverse and popular the Sci-Fi/Fantasy field in multiple mediums the genre is going to be a-ok no matter what flavor of story you like.
“The Rabids just want to annoy. Is it simply because trolling is full of lolz?”
Ironically they protest against people they feel use ideology to over react to individuals and attack those individuals on social media. But just like them they mostly appear to get off on being perpetually offended. That has to be a sad way to live.
I note that while the post has been revised to show that Jo Lindsey Walton is not the Hugo-winning novelist, the “Jo Walton” tag at the bottom has not. Might be a good idea.
“You think it’s off topic to discuss the right to disassociate from someone, to the point of rendering them unemployed …”
You are displaying a weird sense of entitlement about work contracts. Individuals do business with other individuals on the basis of many personal judgments. If an editor was disinclined to work with Larry Correia because of what he’s doing to the Hugos, that’s the editor’s prerogative.
The SF/F field is small, but not small enough that a right-wing author with a ginormous persecution complex can’t find work. Some right-wing editors will buy into the shared hysteria of their mistreatment by secret social justice warrior cabals. Other editors will hire anybody as long as they sell books.
@ Craig R –
You are not describing considered, temperate “business decisions.” You are describing rash, knee-jerk calls in the heat of a social media lynch mob. Instead of pointing to these sorts of hysterical reactions, you should be decrying the leap to judgement and encouraging calm responses.
Gerrold, on the other hand, is out right warning authors of the loss of their livelihoods, professional reputations, and the opportunity to share their stories in response for going against the status quo. I’m not sure which is disturbing – the voicing of such a warning – not in instantaneous reaction, but after consideration and with malice aforethought – or the conviction that it could be followed through with. This isn’t the world of April 2001 any more.
I know we’re just going to talk past one another here but screw it. Let’s say a pizza parlor chooses not to serve you because you are a white straight male. That’s discrimination.
No, that’s a business opportunity. I’ll open a cometing chain and take the money, thanks. Maybe even a few non-white males will join me in deciding that guy is an asshole. But that’s not quite the same thing as demanding he be shut down, or serve me. As much as it annoys me, he has freedom of association to.
Maybe other groups don’t think they are themselves capable of running competing businesses, or think that even if they did, nobody would support them. I wouldn’t know.
However if the reason they’re not serving you is because you walked in, demanded a pizza right now otherwise you’ll burn their whole store to the ground so that no one else ever gets a pizza again.
I believe the order of events more closely would resemble.
– Go into pizza place
– Owner says he will not only not serve me, but will serve NO PIZZA until I am out of the restaurant.
– I say that sucks, cause I can come back every day.
– Owner accuses me of threatening arson.
Rabid Puppies saying that next year they will also vote for works they like, and if they win you will be voting NO AWARD for the foreseeable future, is not the same as destroying everything. As paying members of WorldCon, rabid puppies have as much right as anyone else to vote for works they believe are representative of the best of science fiction and fantasy for the year in question.
For the same reason on a resume you have people they can contact for recommendations. A place might not want to hire you if you can’t work well with others.
Certainly. I’d say they can hire or not hire you for any damn reason they please.
If a puppy keeps pooping on the rug I’ve got nothing against the puppy, but it’s going to have to go outside until it learns to not poop on others property. Agreed. I’m glad we both agree that property rights belong to the owner, who is (or ought) be completely free to bar access to other’s for disregarding his set standards of behavior.
Someone else pooped on your rug? Well that sucks. Agreed. Historical grievances do not justify present bad behavior, or casting out blame. Especially when the original party died generations ago… errr… is not the party who you are currently offending.
Like I said, I think we can close this gap and see that we agree on more than we disagree!
You are displaying a weird sense of entitlement about work contracts. Individuals do business with other individuals on the basis of many personal judgments. If an editor was disinclined to work with Larry Correia because of what he’s doing to the Hugos, that’s the editor’s prerogative.
Not so, I believe that an employee should be able to hire or fire for any reason at all. I am concerned at the state of our nations where – from Abercrombie to Wedding Cakes, our society seems to be, as you say, weirdly entitled. So I am happy to see that many – even those who disagree with me on many things, like what constitutes quality science fiction – agrees that this is bullshit.
Daveon, “lock step” you say? Interesting…
“I believe that an employee should be able to hire or fire for any reason at all.”
I think there should be limits on employers discriminating against entire groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
But that’s not what we’re discussing here. Gerrold was talking about individuals making decisions about who to work with on an individual-by-individual basis.
Stop trying to drag wedding cakes into this. We have a SF/F civil war to fight, as Brad Torgersen declared in a blog post he quickly deleted.
I still don’t understand. You say you hate pizza, you wouldn’t want to eat pizza if it was the only food out there. There’s a burger bar next door. Why is it so damned important that the pizza restaurant serves you?
David Gerrold’s Post: He seemed to me to be warning that actions have consequences – predicting various possible human reactions. I didn’t read it as advocating or threatening, despite what a few rabids here pretend to believe
Pizza Analogy: In many areas, refusing to serve pizza is illegal discrimination. When you enter the public square, you must treat everyone equally. This isn’t “freedom of association” – what a load! You can’t choose your customers based on legally protected criteria (though clearly, reactionaries stuck in the past wish they could). Anyway, the analogy quickly went off the rails above (as many analogies do).
Civil war? Pffft. There is no war. Sales will go on as before, people will buy what they like as before, puppies will scream bloody murder as people have always screamed bloody murder when they feel the world is leaving them behind.
This will just be another quaint history as The Great Exclusion Act of 1939. Forgotten by most, as it should be. People to remniscence and laugh about. On both sides, I guess.
This thread’s topic seems to be drifting from the Hugo Awards to US anti-discrimination law. Just to head things off at the pass: I, for one, do believe that anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing are good things, but do not believe that such laws need to regulate literary awards. If you announce that you will give out a rune-engraved staff to honor The Best Anglo-Saxon Writer Of 2014, and tell me that my Hebrew blood makes me ineligible, I promise not to sue.
Now back to the original topic, which was ethics in science-fiction journalism or some such.
I didn’t bring up pizza parlor, and we both know damn well that pizza parlor wasn’t just some pick-a-random-profession. Acting as if I threw up ‘wedding cakes’ out of the blue is bullshit.
It’s not a ‘sci-fi’ civil war, and you know it. If it were, entertainment weekly, the guardian, the Atlantic, slate, NPR, Popular Science wouldn’t give the smallest of dingleberries about it. Your side chose to expand the field, don’t bitch when we take the fight to the activated fronts and demand we funnel ourselves back into the pre-constructed killzone.
And finally – an employer is an individual. An individual who, as you say is “making decisions about who to work with”. You don’t get to just cherry pick which individuals have the right of association, and which don’t, based on what is convenient for you at the time.
I think there should be limits on employers discriminating against entire groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Why?
@Seth Gordon: Who suggested laws regulate literary awards?! Re. original topic: LOL yes indeed.
@Others: Having worked on SF/F conventions, I’m skeptical PuppyGate would affect authors on slates being invited merely because they were on slates. I suspect most editors are smart enough not to penalize them, as well. Heck, some book buyers seem willing to buy their work due to feeling sorry for their being roped into a slate. 😉 Even the ringleaders of the open conspiracy . . . I bet most conventions (for various reasons not worth going into) wouldn’t use this as an excuse to not invite them (if they were going to anyway). A few might even invite them because of it, heh, but then con-runners are crazy. That said, being invited to a convention is not a god-given right.
Kendall,
In a contract, the buyer and seller are equal.
So I would appreciate an explanation why when ‘in the public square’, it’s unacceptable for the seller to discriminate against the buyer.
Yet you are fine with the idea of a buyer having the right to discriminate against the seller.
If I trade you dollars for some good that isn’t dollars, I can discriminate however I want… but if you trade me a good that isn’t dollars for dollars, then you can’t? Weird.