516 thoughts on “The Dingolarity 6/5”

1. Jeeze, I tried to ask, seriously, just *what* “lefty reaction” caused his ire, and he went off that the “proof” was that the commenters here, and at ML, are “lefties.”

   I then asked if it was the people taking the stance, and not the “stance?”
   his reply:

   “No, try that there are lefties, who have had a pretty uniform reaction. That reaction has beem vile enough to have made me want to see them no award the Hugos, this year, so that the RPs and SPs and general non-lefty fan base can no award in perpetuity. …”

   My head hurts

2. Gabriel F. at 10:18 am:
   @Brian Z

   I’ll just repeat my questions here, since you seem to have ignored them in yesterday’s post. If you expect people to believe you’re actually discussing in good faith and not just here to throw out soft-core Puppy support, you can’t just toss unfounded statements out and expect to go unchallenged… …and so on.

   Gabriel, I was almost tempted to reply by inviting you to consult my short tutorial. But I see it is important to you that I answer, so I will try. Although I will not help you to dig up and cite every comment on the internet by someone who liked Skin Game or “One Bright Star”, I have some pointers for where to look. Sorry if that doesn’t satisfy you.

   I have literally not seen anyone go “this is why I loved this piece and why I nominated it.” Because that is literally NOT what happened. The Rabid Puppies were the winning slate.

   My friends at the Academy for Young Minions call this the fallacy of the alternative disjunct. Please think carefully about what you would like to argue.

   Not the rank and file who did the nominations. No specifics, either. No reasons why that work was good enough, beloved enough, or hell even bestselling enough to merit the award. Link it if you have.

   There are several issues.

   1. Did anybody who read those works think they were particularly good, beloved, “or hell even bestselling”? Why?

   On several websites you can leave a “review” of a particular novel, novella, collection of stories, etc. Many include information about what readers liked, providing tentative support for the hypothesis that some thought they were good. Regarding the opinion of readers of Vox Day’s blog, I noticed there has been some discussion of the merits of nominees in the comments of the past week or two.

   In my comment you replied to, I said Sarah Hoyt wrote on April 5 or so that some of these authors are “beloved” for overall career achievement. Must that kind of consideration be ignored when nominating for awards? I don’t know. Do you know? Are you sure?

   “Bestselling” has been discussed here on File 770 and elsewhere.

   2. Did nominators choose to nominate these works a) “because” they are good/beloved/bestselling enough, b) “because” they want the campaign of Brad Torgersen succeed, or c) “because” they want to see the campaign of Vox Day succeed?

   If you read the blogs of the relevant authors (and past File 770 threads), many fans have weighed in on this.

   a) good/beloved/bestselling

   Some got interested in this campaign because they love some particular author (s) and want to see them given much-deserved recognition. See: Larry Correia, Jim Butcher. Hard as it may be to believe, some people really like John Wright – and may have felt that way for years.

   This is a core fan impulse, and it is the reason why the Hugo Awards exist. In my personal view, their fannish impulses should be respected, no more and no less than those of WSFS members who liked The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester, or a Doctor Who episode written by Neil Gaiman, or a Doctor Who episode written somebody other than Neil Gaiman. You may feel differently.

   b) Brad Torgersen

   The Wrightheads and the Butcher Brigade may or may not have read/nominated all the other items on Brad Torgersen’s annual recommended slate list thing, but they probably at least considered having a look, thanks to Brad and Larry’s “inspirational” blogging and the way the signal was boosted by others.

   Is this legitimate? Personally I think it is crass and demeaning for an author to tell his fans what to do. I thought Nick Mamatas was being very classy when instead of simply doing so, he offered a nuanced analysis of three alternatives: “1. Suck it up. 2. Castigate all campaigning. 3. Rival slates.” I like number 2. On the other hand, it has been a decade since the first science fiction author Self Pimpage Award Post escaped onto the internet, and it may be too late to put the clowns back into the volkswagen. If so, what a pity.

   Did some nominate all or part of Torgersen’s slate without agreeing they are award-worthy? Brad and Larry both said we urge you to read these and nominate if you agree. So, if some Sad Puppy fans nominated without first reading/agreeing, they are guilty of trying to get the slated works onto the ballot without first reading/agreeing. There may not be many, but they know who they are. Was making an effort to counter a perceived bias in recent Hugo rounds legitimate? They may be feeling more and more convinced they did the right thing, or they may be really regretting it now. One could have just talked to them calmly about it, starting from the presumption that we are reasonable adults and everybody’s views should be respected. This would have been a good option for those who agree with the statement “this is bunch of fans who want to get together in the barn and put on a show – not World War Three”. Though not everyone agrees with that.

   c) Vox Day

   I strongly disagree with some of Vox Day’s views and tactics. So do Torgersen and Correia. A whole bunch of of the Mad Geniuses don’t like him. He does have fans. It might be worth listening to them (the fellow fans) and allowing them to make their case, such as it is. If you read the comments on that blog, you’ll see that some have similar tastes and really do like the slated works/authors, and some feel there was a valid reason to engage in bloc voting, but they don’t feel any particular compulsion to do exactly what their lord and master tells them. Hence, one could have a conversation with them. Or, if one has very strong reasons for not wanting to be in the same treehouse with them, one could avoid having a conversation with them. But it does seem that some of them care quite a bit about genre fiction.

3. @Glenn: “For those who’d like to see Irene’s original post, which was published May 11 and people have only discovered now,”

   [reads comments]

   Isn’t it interesting how quickly the “free speech” brigade that squeals so loudly when their speech is criticized breaks out the torches and pitchforks when other people use their freedom of speech to say things the Puppies dislike?

4. “How dare you say the word ‘neo-nazi’ in some way I can claim to be aimed at me, you Maoist, Marxist, SJW, CHORF, lefty, socialist conspirator?!”

5. Then they said there would be cake, and now the cake is gone.

   ” Cake or death?”

   “Uh, cake please.”

   “Well, we’re out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn’t expect such a rush. So what do you want?”

   “Well, so my choice is ‘or death’?

6. Shorter Brian Z:

   I no longer pretend not to be a Puppy, but I still make generalizations and unsupported statements that I refuse to back up. I will also ignore the numerous despicable things that the Puppies/Gamergaters have said and claim that they are not in fact a bunch of bigoted, hypocritical kooks who gamed the system while offering an endlessly inconsistent series of claims and positions about why they set out to do so.

   Finally, I will generalize about how one could do this and could do that and could even do the other. I am endlessly pleased at the array of possibilities that I have made available to an internet that never knew it had such an amazing range of choices as q or not q.

7. Irene’s use of kittens to reply basically wins her the internet.

   I’ll also add a useful quote from Ken White of Popehat for anyone encountering cries of “libel” and “criminally slanderous”: ”

   Vagueness in legal threats is the hallmark of meritless thuggery.

8. @Rev Bob

   Isn’t it interesting how quickly the “free speech” brigade that squeals so loudly when their speech is criticized breaks out the torches and pitchforks when other people use their freedom of speech to say things the Puppies dislike?

   I must confess to being absolutely amazed* that the Puppies should be following the right wing crazy culture war script so faithfully. All we need now is Pat Robertson to explain that God is striking the Hugos because of their homosexualist lifestyle and the wingnut deck will be complete.

   *As in, no, not really.

9. Snoutworlders

10. @Mark

    meritless thuggery

    Some people just want to get their Thuggy McThuggets with a cover that has THUGGY MCTHUGGETS written on it. You know, the way Heinlein wrote them.

11. Will R., you beat me to Ubik but I’m writing the complete works of Kilgore Snout; you can’t have them.

12. @brian z I sincerely hope you are serious about that!

13. @”Brian Z”

    I’m writing the complete works of Kilgore Snout

    Taking a break from The Complete Works Of Theodore Beale sounds like a good idea.

14. @Brian Z: “So, if some Sad Puppy fans nominated without first reading/agreeing, they are guilty of trying to get the slated works onto the ballot without first reading/agreeing. There may not be many, but they know who they are.”

    And so do we. They’re the ones who, for instance, complained about not getting copies of Zombie Nation in the Hugo packet so they could read the book they nominated. They’re the ones who mysteriously can’t say even one specific thing they liked about the works they nominated. They’re the ones who have to ask their almighty Lord Syphilis if it’s okay with him to vote a certain way.

    As for the rest of your post – it was a lengthy and even acrobatic response, but it does not qualify as an answer. Most of it is just more Puppy apawlagetics.

15. @Rev Bob

    apawlagetics

    Too distinctive to steal, but so good that it ought to be stolen.

16. The “Bark Right” Returns

17. Craig R.: Jeeze, I tried to ask, seriously, just *what* “lefty reaction” caused his ire, and he went off that the “proof” was that the commenters here, and at ML, are “lefties.” I then asked if it was the people taking the stance, and not the “stance?” his reply:

    “No, try that there are lefties, who have had a pretty uniform reaction. That reaction has beem vile enough to have made me want to see them no award the Hugos, this year, so that the RPs and SPs and general non-lefty fan base can no award in perpetuity…”

    It’s hilarious that he actually believes that the Puppies have the power to do that; it’s yet another sterling example of the megalomania running rampant with that group.

18. @JJ

    It’s hilarious that he actually believes that the Puppies have the power to do that;

    As the Spartans said to the Puppies at Thermopylae:

    MOLON LABRADOR!

19. @SIW: “All we need now is Pat Robertson to explain that God is striking the Hugos because of their homosexualist lifestyle and the wingnut deck will be complete.”

    It shames me to admit that Robertson and I graduated from the same high school. In fact, he came back there during my tenure, to give a speech during his 1988 Presidential run. At one point, I was no more than ten feet from him… and sometimes, I briefly regret (mostly in jest) that I was unarmed.

20. >> It’s hilarious that he actually believes that the Puppies have the power to do that; it’s yet another sterling example of the megalomania running rampant with that group.>>

    He may believe it in much the same way that he believes he’ll find someone’s home and go shoot them for not being sufficiently servile on the internet. Imagining it happening is enough to soothe his soul.

    When it doesn’t happen, we’ll be hearing a lot of “no one ever said any such thing, and those quotes are out of context.”

21. @Rev Bob

    I am rather glad you weren’t armed. If you had smitten the proxy smiter, we might never have enjoyed your fine sense of humor and the lost art of apawlagetics would have languished in penitential obscurity.

22. SIWier,

    I will also ignore the numerous despicable things that the Puppies/Gamergaters have said and claim that they are not in fact a bunch of bigoted, hypocritical kooks who gamed the system while offering an endlessly inconsistent series of claims and positions about why they set out to do so.

    Hey, the missing Stephenson title!

    An Enthymeme

23. “An Enthymeme”

    Good one!

24. Cruising Through Neuteronomy

25. Craig

    @snowcrash “… BTW, I find it equally amusing that Brad keeps mentioning how he’s too busy with his deployment, yet seems to be able to show up for these various outrage venues. …”
    I believe that he said his deployment would be a little later in the year, so he very well may still be waiting for that.

    Stressful time, waiting. Just fill it as you can.

    Yeah, fair enough on that. His time, his prerogative. I’m just not sure if doing the whole “let’s look for something to be outraged about” dance is ideal for *anyone*.

26. So, aeou has probably flounced, but just in case:

    “Do you not understand that I took his completely irrelevant cis-het signaling thing and mirrored it for brain implosion purposes?”

    Remember this for later.

    “It certainly tripped you up. That you believe that a conservative would honestly believe such a thing says that you do not understand your enemy yet you are so certain you do. We are evil because we are evil because we are evil.”

    Well, considering that the RP leader made comments about how there weren’t enough women in the hard sciences to be writing hard SF, and that another loud Puppy uses “pussy” as his go-to insult, just for starters, gives me good Bayesian priors to presume that you’re actually saying what you mean.

    “To call a man a woman would indeed be an insult to most men which is why K used it. That it offends SJWs doubly is just gravy to him.”

    See above.

    “Is there any particular wild assertion you would like to challenge?”

    Well, we can start with “SJWs always lie”. 🙂

    “and can not even parse plain and unambiguous text.”

    You mean like when you say one thing, and then, when called on it, go on to say “Oh, no, I didn’t mean that, I was yanking your chain, and how could you think I would believe that?” That sort of “plain” and “unambiguous”?

    “As is calling someone a liar to their face without cause.”

    Given the way he’s behaved, anyone calling TK a liar at this point can find ample cause strewn about the Internet.

    “They are the ones who makes a scientist who just landed a craft on a comet cry because he chose the wrong shirt. They are the ones who would force someone to bake a cake for them. They are the ones who can not stand dissent. They are the ones who can not think rationally at all on certain subjects. They get angry over facts. They would tell the rapist not to rape rather than provide women with the means to protect themselves. They are the new left. We are literally reactionaries to that.”

    So, SJWs don’t exist. Thank you for clearing that up — a good definite description often has that effect.

27. Rev. Bob: “and sometimes, I briefly regret (mostly in jest) that I was unarmed.”

    Just makes my hair stand on end after I have spent six weeks reading people talk about Pratchett and Wright about 120 times….

28. @Brian Z

    “Men are angry with those who slander or despise those things which they themselves esteem most highly; for example, if someone speaks disdainfully of philosophy or of personal beauty in the presence of those who pride themselves upon them; and likewise in all other cases. But they are much more angry if they suspect that they themselves do not possess these qualities, either to no degree, or not very strongly… For when they are confident that they do possess those qualities which are experiencing mockery, they are untroubled by it.”

    As you see, Aristotle really does explain the Puppies rather well. As Teddy Beale would have known, had he read beyond the first line of the Rhetoric.

29. “They would tell the rapist not to rape rather than provide women with the means to protect themselves”

    Well yeah. Because trying to protect yourself from rape when rape is socially acceptable is impossible without excluding yourself entirely from society.

    And funny enough, most reasonable people are of the opinion it’s rapists who should GTFO of society, not women.

    The emvowelled one really is an ignorant little troll, isn’t he?

30. “SJWs always lie” really is the RP version of a child sticking the fingers in the ears and shouting “Nyah nyah, I can’t hear you!”.

31. aeou:

    SJWs always lie.

    And Puppies always piss.

32. @Ann Somerville

    The emvowelled one really is an ignorant little troll, isn’t he

    More of a kobold with aspirations, I would say.

    Yes, yes, I admit it, I was a roleplayer in the good old days when you could judge an AD&D scenario by its cover!

33. SIWier,

    Hah. “Tell him that it is Theodosius, sacker of cities.”

    I think everyone can agree that this has all become rather personal for Beale. But doesn’t Aristotle’s sword cut both ways?

34. @Mike Glyer: “Just makes my hair stand on end after I have spent six weeks reading people talk about Pratchett and Wright about 120 times….”

    As I said, mostly in jest. “Mostly” because I must be honest; I am no saint, and sometimes I have dark thoughts.

    The feeling usually comes upon me when I hear news of yet another bad thing Robertson’s done, and I wonder if removing him from the timeline back then – to prevent the twenty-plus years of damage he’s done since then – would have given a worse result than the current reality. It’s a thought experiment akin to imagining going back in time to kill any given Bad Person before their career started, with the added twist that our timelines actually crossed at that point. It’s not so much Urge To Kill X as Wish Nonexistence Upon X.

    Now, at the time, I was a far different person and entertained no such thoughts. To me, on that day, it was just a boring speech by an irritating politician. I did own a firearm (by inheritance), but it was a .22 rifle that was gathering dust in my closet. Never even thought about using it on anyone or anything, except maybe some tin cans.

35. @Brian Z

    “I think everyone can agree… ”

    Do you really?

    I think everyone can agree that no one agrees. Even Teddy Beale’s sockdrawer seems to be divided on the point.

36. Cage Against the Machine

37. SIWier, Then at least you and I agree.

38. @Will R

    The Threepuppy Opera

39. Fetch a Falling Star

40. @SIW Waiting for Fido

41. @Brian Z

    Then at least you and I agree.

    About the nature and inhabitants of Teddy Beale’s sockdrawer? I rather doubt it. I am only an amateur in those things, after all.

42. Fidoman and the Green Goblin Emperor (sorry–it’s getting way too late for me to be attempting these!)

43. @Will: Waiting for Fido

    Alternative: Whelping for Hugo

44. @Will R:

    Cage Against the Machine

    With their hit tracks:

    Chow your enemy

    Pissing in the Name

    Pawful of steal

    Take the hugo back

45. @noah I could second that change!

    @influxus That made me laugh–all too plausible!

46. @Will

    I am still rather partial to At The Mountains Of Muttness, but it found no takers, alas.

    I shall have to console myself with The Puppy Who Quoted Aristotle and other old acquaintances, by the immortal Peter S Beagle.

47. About the nature and inhabitants of Teddy Beale’s sockdrawer?

    No, that Mr. Beale might get some benefit from dusting off his Ars Rhetorica and reading it again.

    (As might we all.)

48. @Brian Z

    Mr. Beale might get some benefit from dusting off his Ars Rhetorica and reading it again.

    I think most people can agree he would be wise to start by reading it for the first time.

49. Rev. Bob at 11:47 pm:

    Have you read this short story about the (ab)use of time travel?

50. The Trolled Fan and the Flea

Comments are closed.