By Chris M. Barkley
HATE: it has caused a lot of problems in this world, but it has not solved one yet.
–Maya Angelou
In the waning hours of July 31, my partner Juli Marr and I submitted our ballots for this year’s Hugo Awards. The next morning, I attended the funeral mass of Margaret Kiefer, a longtime member of Cincinnati Fantasy Group. As I sat and filled out my ballot, I could not help but think of the life she led, my life in fandom and the events leading up to Puppygate.
Margaret Ford Keifer worked as the principal’s secretary for Loveland City Schools for over 30 years. She was also a volunteered her help for the Loveland Historical Society Museum, the Cincinnati Pops, and a longtime member of the Loveland Women’s Club. In addition, she was a member of St. Columban Church for 58 years. Margaret was a founding member of the Cincinnati Fantasy Group and attended 66 consecutive Midwestcons, the last of which she attended this past June, just weeks before her death. She was also the last surviving member of Cincinnati’s only Worldcon, Cinvention, which was held in 1949.
At Margaret’s service, I heard several testimonials to her strength, fortitude and devotion to her community. Warren McCullough, one of her former school principals lauded her as the woman who saved his educational career. Several previous principals had left recently and he was the third hired in three years for a troubled elementary school that no one wanted to send their children. He described that first meeting where he was introduced as being very tense and after what he called a “rousing call to arms” to save the school, his speech was met with dead silence. At that point, Margaret Keifer, who was seated in the front row of the assembly, stood up and faced them down and loudly declared, “I will follow this man…and I will take the first bullet for him, too!” McCullough stated that his career as an educator took off after that incident and was incredibly grateful for her support.
Her parish priest, Father Lawrence Tensi, adamantly refused to call her a mere volunteer, but as true disciple in the purest sense of the word, as one of the few people in the community who could be counted on time after time to organize, work and deliver whatever was needed.
Contrast this with Mr. Beale, who, on the surface seems to have some moderate amount of talent as a writer, editor and publisher, who has gone out of his way to trumpet and advance notions of homophobia, sexism, racism with provocative slander, libelous insults and threats, wildly delivered with what I can only describe as a pseudo- intellectual flair. However, those talents, which could have been used for the betterment of literature and culture, are instead being used to soil and defame it. Beale’s latest attempt at seeking attention, a worldwide call for a boycott of all TOR authors and books, is as pathetic as it is futile.
All of the activities of the Sad and Rabid Puppies might have been easily laughed off, had they not made good on their threats and effectively gamed the Hugo Award nominations this year.
Millions of words have been spilled, pounded, spit out, spit upon, leveraged and expounded upon this subject by thousands of commentators, bloggers, pundits and literary critics since the nominations were announced.
I tell friends and acquaintances that are not familiar with sf fandom that this is not the first fannish feud to spill out into the consciousness of the public, nor will it be the last. With internet connectivity, hair trigger tempers and the willingness of people to stay up WAY PAST their bedtimes to correct stuff on the internet, it is certainly the most public display of asshattery in fandom that general public has ever seen.
I consider what Brad Torgenson, Larry Corriea and Theodore Beale have collectively done, is a direct attack on what fans, writers, editors, publishers and literature itself. And I consider this attack on fandom and the Hugos is a personal attack against me.
My involvement with the Hugo Awards began back during my high school days, when my good neighbor Michaele loaned me her copy of the SF Book Club omnibus edition of The Hugo Winners Volumes 1 and 2 edited by and with introductions by Isaac Asimov, which covered nearly all of the short fiction winners from 1955 to 1970.
(A side note: I wish all of the Hugo winning stories were still readily available, if not in book form, at least as inexpensive ebooks or linked online, so that everyone can appreciate the wide spectrum of authors, stories and styles that have won over the decades.)
These stories blew away my teenaged mind. What I completely ignored at the time were Asimov’s references to the conventions themselves. They referred to these World Science Fiction Conventions, were held in different cities in the US and overseas but not where future conventions were going to be or how to attend them.
Eventually, in 1976, my best friend Micheale and I found our way to the 27th Midwestcon and found out firsthand what conventions were all about. I missed the 1976 Worldcon, MidAmericon in Kansas City, but I attended the first of my 26 Worldcons the next year in Miami Beach.
Over the years, I have volunteered my time to help or head up various Worldcon Press Offices and other duties on 17 occasions, charged with trying to explain fandom and the Hugo Award to the mainstream press of the host city and accommodate fan writers as well.
However, I feel as though my important contributions to the Hugo Awards have come in the last sixteen years. I, along with a number of fellow fans and activists in fandom have been at the forefront of some of the fundamental changes in the Hugo award categories.
We fought for these changes, to the Best Dramatic Presentation, Best Editor categories and the creation of the Graphic Story and co-sponsoring the Fancast category were necessary to keep the Hugos diverse, fairer, engaging and most importantly, relevant in the 21st century.
I must admit, I was in a somewhat of a state of shock when the nominations were formally announced back in April. Almost immediately, some factions inside fandom wanted the Hugo Awards suspended immediately or stopped altogether. Others have organized to either shun or vote No Award in all the categories where Sad/Rabid Puppies nominees are dominate.
Then, as the story spread, news outlets, pundits and commentators outside fandom started to weigh in; Salon.com, Slate, National Public Radio and even the National Review went out of their way to get a grip on what most of them characterized as the ‘geek culture war’.
I do not believe in destroying the Hugo Awards in order to save it.
I repudiate the No Award movement and those that support it. I believe that a No Award given in any category damages the prestige and reputation of the awards. I will vote No award above a nominee in a category ONLY if I can determine if it is warranted by my personal standards and taste, NOT because it was part of a knee jerk reaction to what has happened or for any other political concern. Those who do so blindly, without any consideration of the work itself, are, in my opinion, NOT ethical votes. (And I can report that I cast at least one vote for a nominee in all of the fiction categories.)
Secondly, when an institution is under attack, you fight back. Not with irrational hate speech, subversion of the voting rules and threats but with reasonable speech, more impassioned defenses and more democracy.
I am heartened that from what I have observed, our communities of fans, authors, editors and artists have collectively risen above this controversy. The Puppy movement and their supporters wanted to prove a point; that a small number of voters can impose their will on an unsuspecting public. They have wholeheartedly made their point.
However, in doing so, the Sad-Rabid Puppies have lost the war. Despite their fervent claims, I think the tide of public opinion has turned decidedly against them. Fandom does not have to obsess about the Puppies and their overall effect because whatever influence they had has waned as the controversy has played out.
Their seemingly endless displays of ignorance, buffoonery, arrogance has not gained them any more traction or supporters for changing or eliminating the Hugos. Since the beginning of this crisis, Supporting Memberships for Sasquan were sold in unprecedented numbers. It is my fervent hope they were bought for the sole purpose of voting for the Hugos this year. I also hope that on the night of the Hugo Ceremony, those of us who have opposed this farce will be vindicated.
Science fiction, fantasy or literature as a whole, is not about the future or the past. It is all about the time it is written. It is about the consequences of change, for good or for ill. There will never be any definitive, wholesale agreement from anyone on what it means, what it should contain or what stands for; that’s a debate for historians, literary critics, fanzines and bloggers.
Personally speaking, I don’t believe in applying any sort artificial means of affirmative action to either the voting process or the awards, as the Sad Puppy contingent has asserted with their actions. And, if you think these sort of controversies all come from the conservative wing of fandom, I offer this, an amendment that was briefly considered by the 2009 Worldcon Business Meeting:
4.3.3 Short Title: Female Hugo Award Nominees
Moved, to amend the WSFS Constitution by inserting the following
into the end of Section 3.8: 3.8.nIf in the written fiction categories, no selected nominee has a female author or co-author, the highest nominee with a female author or co-author shall also be listed, provided that the nominee would appear on the list required by Section 3.11.4
This amendment, proposed by a feminist blogger named Yonmei, who was not in attendance at the convention and Hugo Award winning fan writer/editor Cheryl Morgan (who was). Yonmei conceived it as a way to spark a debate at the Business Meeting about the lack of women on the ballot and described on her blog this way:
…it occurred to me cheerfully that as a WSFS member, I could propose an amendment to the Hugo rules. A sort of Joanna Russ amendment. An “up yours!” amendment to all the fans so smugly certain that the only reason there are so many all-male shortlists in the Hugos is because men are just more excellent writers of SF/F than women are: if women were as good as men, this reasoning goes, there just naturally would be equal numbers on average from year to year.
As I recall (and anyone can verify by going to www.thehugoawards.org), the 2007 and 2008 ballots were particularly top heavy with male nominees. In retrospect, it would have been an interesting debate but a majority of those attending voted down the opportunity to debate the issue. I can only tell you that I voted against it because I did not believe that imposing a rather extreme measure at that point in time was unnecessary. I believed those nominations were aberrations and not the result of systemic sexism on the part of the fans voting.
Had she done any research at all about the history of the Hugo Awards, Yonmei would have known that these fans that she deemed as clueless, had also given the award on multiple occasions to the likes of Anne McCaffrey, Alice Sheldon (writing as James Triptree, Jr.), Ursula K. LeGuin, Vonda McIntyre, Susan Wood, Kate Wilhelm, Joan Vinge, C.J. Cherryh, Connie Willis, Lois McMaster Bujold and a host of others.
We can only speculate what Ms. Russ, a writer I admire and respect, would have thought about such an amendment. (For the record, I am of the opinion that there would have been a gratuitous amount of eye rolling on her part.)
You can read more about this kerfluffle and draw our own conclusions from this link from Mike Glyer’s File 770: https://file770.com/?p=1304
Take particular note of the exchange of messages between Yonmei and Jo Walton. It is typical exchange between someone who feels that her dogmatic approach and theory is superior to the experiences of the person who is actually in the situation. Dogma and opinions do not win arguments, logic, reason and facts do.
(You will also note, with some measure of irony, that Jo Walton went on the win the Hugo and Nebula Awards for her 2011 novel, Among Others.)
I never talked Margaret Keifer about Puppygate. I don’t even know if she was aware of the situation. I am fairly certain, knowing her, that she would have thoroughly disapproved of the actions of the Puppies. Her life‘s story stands in stark contrast to everyone involved, especially Theodore Beale’s.
I do not obsess about it but I have been wondering whether he really understands that a life is a legacy for those who follow him.
There is room in fandom for rational discussion, debate and even dissent. There is no room however, for empty rhetoric and false conjecture, death threats, bullying, hateful and blatant racism, sexism and gay baiting, which is what the Sad Puppies now stand for, forever tarred with the same brush as and the Rabid Puppy crew, whether they like or not.
Moreover, this means that while we may have to listen to the inane and idiotic diatribes of Theodore Beale/Vox Day, we do not have to endorse or accept them.
Margaret Keifer’s life is an exemplary example of what every fan’s, every person’s life should be.
What Theodore Beale and his followers have forcefully shown, is that they are incapable of empathy, kindness or human decency.
They have my pity, and little else.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Hahaha Today is the day SJW’s liken themselves to termites and ants rather mammals. Well, the fumigators agree and are gathering.
There is no reason man can not fly under muscle power thousands of species manage it! I suggest you try it today.
Nuts
Do they even math?
Yes. And you really don’t. The Muslim world you are so concerned about? The combined non-oil GDP of the majority Muslim nations in the world is less than that of Spain. The African nations you are concerned about are primarily Uganda and Zimbabwe, which is like claiming that all of Asia is in trouble because Laos is kind of a crummy place to live. But do keep fearing these places. It makes you look even sillier than you do when you spout ignorant bullshit about evolution.
Since Brian continues to make utterly unsubstantiated claims and accusations, I’ll drop this in (h/t Soon Lee & others):
[RUBBER STAMP BRIAN Z RESPONSE]
Hey Brian, are you going to to reply to Oneiros’ question or are you going to keep hand-wringing and trying to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)?
[/RUBBER STAMP BRIAN Z RESPONSE]
@Dan, be a dear and step up your game. Your current approach is too boring and unoriginal.
Temporarily assuming EPH passes, that still leaves us with No Award to use in the case of slate candidates that do make it onto the ballot, if we feel we need to. It’s not an either/or situation. What EPH will do is, in times of slates, make the ballot more diverse.
Brian’s usual schtick is to go on about how we need to do social engineering, rather than EPH. What he never bothers to address is why we can’t do both. In times of no slates, EPH is a bit of a bother for the administrators, possibly, but doesn’t have any noticeable affect on the ballot. So, really, why not. There is nothing about EPH that precludes the various solutions that Brian often proposes.
But, then, Brian hasn’t been telling the truth for months, and we all know this.
I’m curious as to how much of your outlook on life is based on precepts derived from your understanding of evolution, and why you think the relationship of particular groups of people to a vastly complex, independent, amoral and mindless natural process that tends to work over huge timescales should affect the way we treat them.
Seriously? If I’m not your friend, who is?
“I just want to point out that Dan either doesn’t know how conception works, or he doesn’t know how sex works.”
Like your dad, I am the proud father of four daughters (and a son) and I am quite sure that this could not have happened if I didn’t have at least a passing attraction toward my wife.
Lydy, aren’t you glad that through your family’s interesting history you came to be? If your dad had followed the SJW prescription you clearly would not be here to enrich our dialog!
If your dad had followed the SJW prescription you clearly would not be here to enrich our dialog!
You know, being ignorant is something most people hide. You, on the other hand, put your ignorance front and center.
A shining moment of agreement all round. We don’t want any of that either, for him or from him. Look, Brian! Reconciliation!
Hey, I’ve had friends who have done less than honorable things that I’ve called them on before. Usually they shape up, but not always.
The YPG are based in Syria and have made large gains against ISIS recently, FYI.
I actually live in a Muslim country of 80 million people and the chances of sharia law being implemented here are non-existent.
I think you really need to broaden your reading.
@Dan
Aw, gee. An actual real-life Impacted Canine!
Homosexuality and transgenderism are not, never have been and probably never will be healthy/ideal human functioning. This is not hate or superstition but merely a corollary of human evolution.
Why don’t you try telling that to all the gay couples who have been together for decades, who are raising children and in all respects healthy functioning members of society?
I am quite certain that most leftists do not, in their heart of hearts, believe human evolution is true.
That, quite simply, is bullshit. The evidence shows that evolution is true. End of discussion.
Oscar Wilde’s grandson and great-grandson live and work in England to this day. Do trot off to Wikipedia and argue why he shouldn’t be placed among Gay Writers.
This has nothing to do with evolution per say but was due to the social mores of the time. These are obviously changing to the distress of some. The fact that transgendered people and homosexual, or at least in some countries, can lead happier lives is that we as a society aren’t as shitty as we used to be. We have ways to go but at least we are heading in correct direction.
The evidence shows that evolution is true. End of discussion.
Well, I don’t believe that the cartoon version of evolution that Dan seems to favor is true. I think the version of evolution that is supported by the evidence and accepted by the vast majority of scientists across the globe is, on the other hand, most definitely true.
Do…do you want an itemized list, Brian?
I am hoping this is a joke, because the alternative is so sad that I shy away from it. Although I am then reminded of that one troll who used to make a blogger’s life a living hell, and when interviewed later expressed the belief that they were a buddy comedy and they were just playing off each other and had no idea that the blogger loathed him desperately. And I realize that some people just have no idea how they come off.
Sigh. Let’s go with joke. Ha.
Dan, I don’t really have an opinion on my own existence. It’s not something I chose, it’s something that happened to me. Would I be happier if I wasn’t who I am? How could that possibly matter to me, if I am not me? This question you ask isn’t a question.
Do I think that working, now, to eliminate the ignorance, fear, and stupidity that made my father’s life a misery, and by extension my own, will cause, on the whole, a better, happier world with better, happier people in it? Yes, yes I do. The future I can change. The past, I cannot.
There’s probably a German word for feeling horror and pity simultaneously.
Oh, um – ha.
@Jayn: You made me smile. Thanks for that. I was always very fond of Wilde. Somehow, I didn’t realize he’d had a kid. I’m one of today’s lucky 10,000.
Brian Z, I have no idea why you told me I had an ally on Vox Day’s blog. I did a search for my name on the page you sent me to; my name wasn’t there. Would you like to be more specific? Who is my ally, and what did he or she say?
And your objection to EPH seems to be that it won’t keep ALL slates nominations off the list, ALL THE TIME.
So I guess you object to child-resistant medicine caps because they don’t keep ALL children ALL THE TIME from poisoning themselves. SOME children still poison themselves with medicine, so therefore we shouldn’t have child-resistant medicine caps at all.
That seems to be your position on mitigating-but-not-perfect solutions to problems. If I’ve mischaracterized your position, please explain exactly how.
At this point, Brian Z has provided more than sufficient evidence of what he is. Namely: He is what Harry Frankfurt would call a bullshitter. Brian Z does not give two hoots in hell whether the verbiage he disgorges is “true” or “false”. Rather, his agenda is succinctly captured by these words from the wikipedia page for Frankfurt’s seminal work On Bullshit:
@Dan
Lydy, oh calm down
Aw, gee, and a patronizing Impacted Canine to boot!
“The evidence shows that evolution is true. End of discussion.”
Lol! It is quite clear that SJWs do not believe that evolution is true, at least as it relates to humans. Somehow, Evolution, in Its infinite Grace, applies Itself to all of the animal kingdom except for humans, for which It lovingly suspends those laws. How the SJW position is different from that of the Fundamentalist Christians they so hate with their unhating hearts is not completely clear.
Lydy wrote, “Dan, I don’t really have an opinion on my own existence.”
Well I for one am glad you exist. Cheers!
@Lydy
You’re welcome. Wilde’s always been one of my favorites, even as an SFF writer (he won the 1894 Victorian Hugo for The Picture of Dorian Gray, and I think he was robbed for The Canterville Ghost). 😉
He actually had two kids, and an interesting and ultimately tragic marriage. I highly recommend Richard Ellman’s bio; in my not-consciously-hyperbolic opinion, it’s one of the best literary biographies ever written.
For the record I am neither a sad nor a rapid puppy.
Just a bystander who likes to drop a few reality bombs on intelligent sillies from time to time. Judging by the ad-hominem substituted for argument, this blue pill crowd does not like to see its slumber disturbed. Fear not — surely I am just a brief passing nightmare; may your coming dreams be so happy and pleasant that you forget all about this uncomfortable interlude!
Peace out!
I’m getting more and more curious about how you practice this apparently quasi-religious approach to evolution as it relates to humans. Do you celebrate or solemnise the lessons and teachings of evolution on a daily basis? Is there a ritual ceremony of some sort, or does it actually dictate your behaviour in everyday interactions? Do you believe that this is evolution somehow working through you, or is it simply a symbolic observance of, perhaps, humility in the face of deep evolutionary time? Or of your evolutionary ascendance, perhaps, given your apparent understanding of others as evolutionarily inferior to you? This really is a fascinating lifestyle choice you’ve made. Tell us more.
Aw, darn, it’s gone. I was going to ask it whether the fact that he spent a significant period in his adolescence in which his main sex partner was himself means that HE counts as bisexual in his own weird accounting of such.
The weird thing about the evolution argument is, even if it were right, so the heck what?
I mean, sure, it’s completely incorrect. If it’s an evolutionary dead end, it’s had hundreds of thousands of generations to get gone in homo sapiens alone, and yet here it is, still around. And it’s also around in many, many animal species that have been around even longer. It’s kind of hard not to notice that this “dead-end” trait has noticeably failed to dead-end. Then add to that the fact that to even keep making this argument about humans, you have to willfully ignore things like artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, and the fact that people who really want kids perhaps might be willing to have sex with people they’re not attracted to in order to have kids. (I mean, that isn’t even exclusive to gay people. Does anyone seriously think that NO HETEROSEXUAL has ever had sex with someone they’re not attracted to in order to have kids? Seriously?) In point of fact, you know how many gay couples I know have kids? Most of them, actually.
But let’s wave all that aside. Let’s pretend that it’s all true and homosexuality is (gasp!) an evolutionary dead end.
So what?
Why should anyone care? What’s the end-point to this argument? My uncle is straight and he doesn’t want kids. So what? Are we supposed to put him on an ice floe or something? Not allow him to get married for … some reason? Because people who don’t want kids shouldn’t be allowed to have hospital visitation rights with each other, or … ?
Seriously. So what?
@Dan
You do understand that everyone here is laughing at you, right? Your bogus ‘superior’ tone is a long running joke how it is only ever adopted by lackwits and faux-intellectuals who have no clue what they’re talking about when they repeat the same inane talking points time and time again? The double-sided nonsense of evolution logically opposing homosexuality (it doesn’t as homosexuality is a re-occuring natural trait across animal species), that there simply are genetic racial factors that impact intelligence and creativity (not a single scientifically supported study has ever proven this), and that the Muslim world is poised to destroy the West (which shows just how pantswettingly terrified the hard right is at shadows that they need all the guns to feel brave enough to leave the house in the morning).
We are laughing at you. The responses aren’t borne of fury and dismay at your logic. It’s because most of us are using a lull in our day to point out just how stereotypically ridiculous you are. You’re the parody of the right winger that gets used in stand-up.
So please, feel free to continue. But no matter what bait you try, you won’t get the outrage and anger you so desperately need for validation. The best you can hope for is getting quoted in emails along with the picture of the redneck and his ‘moran’ scene for a chuckle after lunch.
I really do wish you’d stick around and explain the rationale for using an understanding of evolution to determine how we treat particular groups of people. It’s a real puzzle to me.
@Kyra
There’s a very strong cohort in the modern ‘libertarian’ movement that is desperate to claim their their opposition to LQGTR rights is solely based on cold, empirical scientific logic. If they can, it just means they are intellectually superiour and willing to accept the truths of ‘hard science’ that squishy liberals are too gutless to accept.
@Ray
Tuesdays with Molakesh was on an early Sad puppy list, but apparently wasn’t eligible this year
And here I thought it didn’t make the cut because Vox dropped it from the Rabid Puppies slate.
@Brian Z
Though I wonder if those saying they automatically no-awarded things that won due to a bloc vote will be consistent enough to also vote against any rules change that is premised on it being OK for a bloc vote to to get SOME things on the ballot.
Oh, let me answer that for you: No! No, they won’t!
@Brian Z
But is it fair to nominees to no-award them without reading?
(1) If you imply no one read this year’s nominees before voting No Award in preference to them, then you’re flat-out lying in the face of overwhelming evidence against that assertion. Oh, but I see you know this.
(2) If you imply that it’s unfair to nominees to no-award them without reading…then you have a difference of opinion. Some argue it’s no more unfair than nominating candidates you didn’t bother to read, as they suggest many slate voters did, and which in any case a slate certainly makes possible. Some argues it’s no more unfair than gaming the nominations process to disenfranchise everyone else.
(3) If someone wants to vote No Award because they read the stories and decided they didn’t meet the voter’s own criteria of Hugo-worthy, or because they read the stories and thought they were horrible, or because they don’t care for Sad Puppies’ politics, or because they’re aghast at Sad Puppies’ behavior through this awards season, or as a protest against slating in principle…then it’s really none of your business. People can cast their vote based on whatever reason motivates them.
@Cassy B
Brian Z, If a slate-fighting algorithm means a bloc vote still selects four novellas, fan writers, etc., that’s just ineffective. Vote for it if you want.
No, doing nothing is ineffective. Getting at least ONE non-slate nominee (and quite likely two or three; felice’s math has not been verified) may be minimally effective, but it is not ineffective.
I remain unconvinced that felice’s hypothetical of dropping hundreds of extra ballots into a race where in reality they did not exist demonstrates anything, in fact. For one thing voting numbers have changed since that year and they’ll be different next year, and the year after that.
@Dan
Judging by the ad-hominem substituted for argument, this blue pill crowd does not like to see its slumber disturbed.
Why don’t you respond to their actual arguments suggesting that your ill-informed idea of evolution is, you know, not reality-based?
Just for @Dan:
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/08/why-straight-men-have-sex-with-each-other.html
It is quite clear that SJWs do not believe that evolution is true, at least as it relates to humans.
Given that it has been made abundantly clear that you don’t actually understand evolution at all, it is curious that you think yourself qualified to make this claim. Or it would be had Dunning and Kruger not done their research on the effects of being too incompetent to know you are incompetent. Perhaps you should sign up as a test subject, since you are a sterling example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
For the record I am neither a sad nor a rapid puppy.
You’re pretty bad at lying. I know you think you’re very clever, but really you’re like a child with crumbs and smeared chocolate all over his face claiming you didn’t dive into the cookie jar.
Just a bystander who likes to drop a few reality bombs
Oh? When were you planning on dropping them? Everything you’ve claimed thus far on every subject you’ve opined upon has been shown to be the braying of an ignorant blowhard. When will you get to the reality bombs part?
@Nigel
I really do wish you’d stick around and explain the rationale for using an understanding of evolution to determine how we treat particular groups of people. It’s a real puzzle to me.
Social Darwinism! A long-discredited but still thriving theory that people of whom you don’t approve just shouldn’t be allowed to live.
@Dex
There’s a very strong cohort in the modern ‘libertarian’ movement that is desperate to claim their their opposition to LQGTR rights is solely based on cold, empirical scientific logic. If they can, it just means they are intellectually superiour and willing to accept the truths of ‘hard science’ that squishy liberals are too gutless to accept.
Goes beyond LQGTR of course. There’s the spectacle of Mr. Beale in interviews expounding long-discredited views on race and intelligence (because his ancestors bred with Neanderthals and yours didn’t, or something), then shrugging his shoulders as if to say, “Hey! Science. Nothing I can do about it.”
But Dex, what is the logic supposed to be? I don’t even get it. My reaction to this isn’t, “Oh, no, I must not believe it because if true it destroys all my cherished beliefs!” My reaction is, “That’s stupid, but if it were true, so what?”
Brian Z.: While less surprised he didn’t like Maggie the Tank, I did anyway.
I’m not at all surprised — that he didn’t like it. I am surprised that you did.
One of the many benefits I’ve received from File770 is that commenters recommended I read the best of Laumer’s Bolo stories, which I did (“Combat Unit”, “A Relic of War”, “The Last Command”). Then someone linked to David D. Levine’s “Damage”, which I also read.
That was all that was required to make it clear just what a mediocre story “Big Boys Don’t Cry” really is.
@Dan
Just a bystander who likes to drop a few reality bombs on intelligent sillies from time to time.
Oh, you mean “troll.”
Fixed that for you.
(For a few forlorn minutes I was hoping no one was going to reply to him at all.)
Dan’s arguments completely ignore the fact that bisexuality is a thing that exists. (But we’re used to being invisible.) And most bisexuals end up in long term monogamous relationships like everyone else, and a big percentage of them choose partners of the opposite sex, and a big percentage of those couples have children. And some of us have long term partners of the same sex and everyone assumes that we’re homosexuals. It’s amazing how much bigger the world gets when you lose the binary thinking.
His argument that ISIS has “brought back” killing people for being gay and/or non-gender-conforming is also stupid. Wonderful humans have never stopped killing people for being gay; it’s only been in the last couple of decades that it started to become even somewhat frowned on.
Wonder if that guy who was harassing the gay West Point couple was trying to drop a few reality bombs on them? Turned out he was the one who learned some painful truths.
Bigots go through extraordinary lengths in reasoning to claim they aren’t so. The whole evolution justification in regards to homosexuality is an uneasy reminder of the eugenics arguments made to demonstrated the inferiority of certain “racial” groups.
@Richard Brandt
Although Beale expounds a far more extreme end, yeah, pretty much. It’s the idea that they can use science as a shield against being denounced because they know that being called a racist, sexist, or prejudiced jerk is looked at as a negative thing by the general public. It also helps explain why their grasp of how science works is so shoddy.
Not to mention, before ISIS “brought back” killing homosexuals, there was Uganda and its barbaric anti-gay laws that US Christians helped write.
@Kyra
Well, of course you wouldn’t understand it.
You’re not an idiot.
Seriously though, most of these guys are basically converted Dominionists who like the idea that science replaces God and thus, science creates moral truths and absolutes. If evolution is about adaptive genes that pass through reproduction and you have a group that doesn’t reproduce, ipso facto, that group is aberrant from a scientific perspective (as opposed to homophobic twit perspective), thus, treating them like normal people is anti-scientific and wrong.
I also note that he dropped in a ‘blue pill’ reference. If you’re not aware, the blue pill is a term used by people who call themselves ‘red pill’ supporters, who make up some of the most extreme MRA advocates on the internet. Their bread and butter is how science proves that women are inferior and evil, gay men are basically women, and all lesbians are the evil and weakness of women concentrated and then weaponized against men.
Their world view is best summed up by Kate Beaton:
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=382
“There is no room however, for empty rhetoric and false conjecture, death threats, bullying, hateful and blatant racism, sexism and gay baiting, which is what the Sad Puppies now stand for, forever tarred with the same brush as and the Rabid Puppy crew, whether they like or not.”
Yeah, except none of that is true about the Puppies. What a ridiculous liar you are. The Hugos were wrecked because bad writers were writing crap, but they were winning awards for conforming to cute ideas of inclusion. It’s fine to have stories with people of all sorts in them; the problem is the stories were very stupid, and often not SF/F at all. And the voters; look, nothing against zombie/vampire/slash/ero fanfic, but come on. The Hugo crowd these last few years wouldn’t know Jack Vance from Xena. You can try to make this about discrimination or bigotry; we know that in the absence of any real injustice to fight, you guys will make crap up. Our grandparents fought Hitler; you guys sent an angry tweet to Hobby Lobby. Such courage.
And also, there’s a big difference between being a fan of SF/F and being a shill for the publishing cartels and their cronies. It’s been a cozy little circle-jerk for a while now, and I know you’re very comfortable with what you’re told to like. Mama’s gonna check out all your girlfriends for you, right? It’s really scary when the wall starts coming down. Read your Fromm – freedom is scary.
So for those of us not content to let Tor and their marketers do our thinking for us, we’re damn well going to vote for what we like. And you telling us it’s badthink? Well, go to hell. You’ve used a lot of words to tell us you’re terrified and you really hate anyone lighting a path out of this comfortable conformity. Here’s what should really terrify you:
WE DON’T CARE. We don’t care about being outnumbered. We don’t care about the names you call us. We don’t care about your feelings. We don’t care about your stupid little club of cozy conformers. We don’t care when you lie. So keep right on bleating.
And they were free to do so. But then they decided that they needed to game the system to get themselves a shot at the big prizes.
And yet you are here. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Zach, so, you liked “Wisdom From My Internet”? Tell me, what about it made it stand out for you? Can you sum up your reaction to it for me?
Such a bold statement deserves a bold, statistically significant set of examples! Whenever you’re ready.
Good grief, is this tag-team trolling or something? Is the next part of the plan for one to distract the ref while the other grabs a chair?
@Zach
He’s got a point there. I’ve been reading this site every day for months now and I don’t recall a single discussion about anything other than Social Justice and Communism.
Not to mention the simple fact that “If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love” swept every category other than Best Novel (which went to a utopian novel about a future where everyone is female) in the 2014 Hugos.
I’ve finally taken the red pill. Time to break up with my girlfriend and start posting bitterly about it on reddit.
Given how well Vance’s Dying Earth did in Kyra’s fantasy bracket playoff, that’s certainly not true!
Lydy: In times of no slates, EPH is a bit of a bother for the administrators, possibly,
Once it’s in the nomination-counting routine, which I assume involves a computer, it can be handed from one year to the next, like the program that counts the final ballots. (Why reinvent the wheel?)