488 thoughts on “The Left Paw of Darkness 5/16”

1. Rick – I don’t think Will is being pseudonymous. If you click on his name, the link takes you to his website, where his identity and background are quite clear.

   I’ve provided more than one specific example, as per your request. Can we now allow people to refer to the anti-semitism of “Vox Day” without you calling them on it?

2. @rick At least I put my face on what I wrote. And you can click my little name and find my blog with my full name, but it’s not much of a taunt in any case, since I thought it was our arguments that were supposed to matter (and who knows who’s really who on the internet anyway?). But I recognize we’ve been sparring, so.

   Meanwhile, to continue to refer to it as a “thing,” as if I’ve been vague, just kind of makes my point and the point of the others who have given you mountains of “specific examples.” You may ask me to kindly read one or two statements of this kind by a person, but such statements over many years in many settings with many opportunities to be clear, from articulate people…I think you are deluding yourself if you really believe they don’t mean it.

3. “Nasty names.” Like it’s a playground squabble.

4. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

5. Rick Moen, for someone who doesn’t “give a rat’s tuchis what any of various classes of ideologues profess to think about me on the Internet”, you’ve managed to namecheck me twice as someone who doesn’t think much of you at all. You said I think you’re a horrible person “because I read Shetterly and take him seriously”. I didn’t say you were a horrible person. I was a lot ruder than that:

   http://blog.logophilos.net/index.php/2015/04/requireshate-breaks-a-promise-and-harasses-a-former-victim/

   Of course, I wasn’t to know you were going to give me much more extravagant cause for my assessment through your comments on this post, but I see no reason to revise it.

   I am not a “sometimes SFF author”. I *am* an SFF author, published and everything, by anyone’s metric, even that of the disease ridden canines, and certainly more than you are. As for enforced shunning, you perhaps have me confused with the person your wife is currently championing, RequiresHate. Now there’s a woman who believes in shunning, not to mention boiling people in acid and driving them to madness.

   If you are going to list all the people less than impressed by your pseudointellectual games regarding your newest BFF Teddy, you’ll be at it for a while. But you can leave me out of your arguments with the gentlefolk here, who likely have no idea I exist, and nor should they. If you really don’t give a rat’s arse what I think, then you have no reason to keep my name in your mouth, do you?

6. Peace:”Indeed, one can think of a dozen strong, plausible, and excellent reasons without getting anywhere near “cowardice”.”

   Particularly when vulnerable people are trying to speak up on a matter with known cyber-bullies being involved.

   Anonymity is like fire. It can lead to horrible things. It can also help you survive.

7. @rick Can you really not see how heartbreaking it is for two Kurt Vonnegut fans to be having this conversation? That’s even more heartbreaking. I mean, really, maybe one of the saddest things I’ve ever heard. And I’m kind of a connoisseur.

8. JJ,

   I think I’m going to have to dispute your view of Among Others, Zoe’s Tale, and The Diamond Age as YA…

9. @alexvdl:
   To be fair JJ did say Zoe’s Tale was disputable. I’m dying to know how Little Brother is disputable as YA. I thought Doctorow’s Little Brother, Homeland, For the Win, and Pirate Cinema were all clearly his YA line, distinct to the voice and themes he explored in Makers.

   @Rick:
   No worries, it was a poorly thought out idea and constructive criticism is always a good thing.

10. @mark As a Sad Puppy myself, I think we could draw a brighter, clearer line if we were to change our name and not share 90 percent of our logo with people who are perfectly willing, even eager, to be seen as extremists. To be honest, I can see why it confuses them.

11. I’m amazed that anyone could read the VD quotes Seth Gordon referenced above and still think there was anything borderline or arguable about Beale’s anti-semitism.

    The French are not going to patrol their own streets indefinitely on behalf of those who are not, in the end, even French.

    The diaspora Jews must understand that they will never rule over the more numerous nations for long.

    Yes, insinuating that French or English or USian Jews are not really citizens of their countries is flat out anti-semitism.

12. @Mark – Actually, I don’t feel misled. I think Brad’s intentions were just as he stated – to take SP3 in a less toxic direction by ditching the political aspect and focusing on good works by under-recognized authors – and then things got out of hand (again, though, they got out of hand on both sides).

    So, no, my presence on the SP list doesn’t constitute a political statement, and the SP3 aims I personally endorse are limited to those about showcasing good works that might otherwise be overlooked.

13. @Stevie, @JJ: I go to a Greek Orthodox church–half the liturgy is in one of those ancient languages. As far as I can tell, we’re still using terms like “Kyrie” in the same sense as the authors of the New Testament, the Church Fathers, and the various Councils. And Stevie, I’m puzzled at what you mean by “lack of evidence.” People call Jesus “Lord” in the gospels all the time, and he never stops them.

    (Sorry for dragging this up again; I was asleep while the rest of the conversation moved on. I’m done now.)

14. Three nominations for Beale in 2015 is hardly less toxic than the single one from the year before. Even more toxic I would say. At least Wright wasn’t included in 2014.

    Can’t say that the political aspect was removed in anyway. At least not from reading Wrights and Hoyts blogs.

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/01/a-message-from-my-publisher-concerning-sad-puppies/
    http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/01/29/dilettantes/

15. I think Brad’s intentions were just as he stated – to take SP3 in a less toxic direction by ditching the political aspect and focusing on good works by under-recognized authors

    Uh-huh. That’s why he started this year’s slate announcements with the bullshit complaint that the Hugos had been used as “affirmative action” for the last couple of years. Because he didn’t intend the SP3 campaign to be political.

    That’s why in his “How you can help the SP3 campaign” post Brad complained about books talking about feminism, or that had “message-fiction”, and repeated his discredited mantra about combating the “politicized Worldcon voting process”. Because he didn’t intend the SP3 campaign to be political.

    Which is why Correia, Brad’s partner in the effort, described the SP3 campaign as being part of a culture war against “SJWs”. Because he didn’t intend SP3 to be political.

    Which is why Brad has been calling people HPPCs, CHORFs, and SJWs, while attacking recent nominees as having too much fiction about social issues. Because he didn’t intend SP3 to be political.

    SP# has been drenched in politics from its inception. If Brad told you it wasn’t about politics, he was lying to you.

16. I don’t really need to write at length about the YA Hugo, because so many other people have now done so.

    There is a YA Hugo Study Committee ([email protected], but I don’t know if non-members can post) that is currently discussing things.

    If you want a YA Hugo, I suggest you think about how you’re going to define it technically. Read the definitions of the existing categories in Section 3.3 of the WSFS Constitution and then write a technical definition for “Best Young Adult Work.” Post it here. Watch how many people poke holes in it.

17. @Kary

    Actually, I don’t feel misled. I think Brad’s intentions were just as he stated – to take SP3 in a less toxic direction by ditching the political aspect and focusing on good works by under-recognized authors – and then things got out of hand (again, though, they got out of hand on both sides).
    So, no, my presence on the SP list doesn’t constitute a political statement, and the SP3 aims I personally endorse are limited to those about showcasing good works that might otherwise be overlooked.

    Kary, even if Brad’s intentions were as you stated (and going back to look at his earliest posts on starting SP3, I don’t exactly see conciliation in the air) he certainly hasn’t stuck to them. I’ve also had the opportunity to look into what you had to say at the time. I noticed that you were extremely quick and insistent on disavowing any connection with Rapid Puppies. If you’re not happy with what SP3 turned into, you haven’t taken the opportunity to disavow the change. Your blog post “The Disavowal”, in which you state you aren’t disavowing SP3, was written shortly after Brad had coined “CHORF” (Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics), condemned opponents as “the Social Justice scolds”, declared free speech in SF gets you blacklisted, complained about TruFen and CHORFS gatekeeping the Hugos, etc etc. I could go on, that’s just a few days in his blog prior to your post. If you simply took Brad’s intentions on trust, then you had plenty of time to disabuse yourself of how he was handling SP3 prior to doubling down on supporting it.
    I’d like to pick up on a particular point you made in that post about why you were sticking with support for SP3.

    “Sad Puppies includes greater political variety, more women, more people of color and more non-het writers than it ever has before, and I wanted to support that growth.”

    The easiest one to point out there is women. Where exactly are are they? In the fiction categories I see 3 from 17 (disclaimer: counting and/or recognising gender of names may be a bit squiffy today!) one of whom withdrew! A recent improvement in gender balance in the Hugos has crumbled under SP2 and 3.

    Frankly, I don’t believe remaining on SP3 “doesn’t constitute a political statement”, and any attempts you may have made to give only limited endorsement have been ineffective. I’m sure you would like to stay out of what you call “kerfuffles on the internet”, but the fact is that you stepped into the middle of the kerfuffle, and have avoided several opportunities to exit it.

18. @ann Thank you for that information.

19. @Peace: I think, with only a very, very little thought, one may readily come up with some extremely good reasons why people might use pseudonyms on the internet.

    I’ve fought for decades to maintain that right, and can cite a bunch of those reasons, myself.

    Pity what so many people do with it.

    If you click on his name, the link takes you to his website, where his identity and background are quite clear.

    Well, hullo, William Reichard of Belfast. Nice to put a name to the name. @BIll, pray tell, since you seem to like gossip and gratuitous personal commentary, why specifically do you assert that Mr Beale ‘may chase [me] to the far corners of the Arctic’? And what, pray tell, do you think Mr Beale would do if he found me? For the record, my exact location including ICBM coordinates (exact latitude, longitude, and altitude) is on my personal Web page.

    @XS: Ignoring the vast bulk of Unwin’s post and going for the cheap Wikipedia shot probably didn’t help your case as being entirely upfront.

    One, I have exactly zero ‘case’ to prove to @Unwin the Goof, let alone you. Two, I didn’t actually owe anything to @Unwin the Goof, particularly at three in the morning. Three, I had merely responded to @Rachel asking me what I thought qualified as antisemiitism, and so I had good-naturedly replied with a set of essential characteristics that I imagined that most people would consider to be central to that or indeed any other sort of bigotry — while also saying that I had no doubt that some people used the word to mean other things entirely. So, this other person @Unwin the Goof barging in to give me a ‘range of definitions’ from ‘experts’ wasn’t really very interesting.

    @Unwin the Goof: I’ve provided more than one specific example, as per your request.

    Actually, as I’ve reminded several people, I asked @Owlmirror what he or she had in mind as at least one, preferably two, specific examples of antisemitism. (Unless you are sockpuppeting rather outrageously, you are not @Owlmirror.) We’ve now heard from several people who have now acted as if I had asked their view, including you. But @Owlmirror has for whatever reason not spoken to that or any other question since I asked, so we don’t know what he or she had in mind.

    Can we now allow people to refer to the anti-semitism of “Vox Day” without you calling them on it?

    I reserve the right to politely but firmly request that people be specific at any time. Without clearing that request with you. (In part, I notice that vaguely abstract handwaves become thinner on the ground when you politely request specifics, and I find vaguely abstract handwaves tiresome, no matter how people justify them as ‘shorthand’ or whatever.)

    But you seem to be insisting that I engage with your reasons why you (and, you aver, the ‘range of definitions’ from ‘experts’) consider the characterisation to apply to Theodore Beale, under the presumption that your criteria matter to @Owlmirror more that @Owlmirror’s own criteria do, perhaps. I have some time at the moment and it’s no longer 3am where I am, so I’ll expend a bit of my time, sure:

    If Beale’s ‘Time to go’ editorial makes him an antisemite because he thinks the Jewish population of Europe have no long-term future there, then apparently The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and PM Benjamin Netanyahu are also antisemites, as they have expressed the same view in about the same way. I suppose it’s not a contradiction in terms to suppose that the PM of Israel and Likudnik-in-Chief is antisemitic, but perhaps it’s a sign that this construing of the concept might be troubled. (FWIW, I do not concur with Beale, Goldberg, or Netanyahu on this matter, though I’m sympathetic to the uneasiness of some, e.g., my boss Jourdan Clish who with his family have always kept in readiness the ability to jump borders if the pogroms of their nightmares came back.)

    I consider at least troubling Beale’s tendency towards ethic essentialism about ‘traits’ and think, since you seem to be asking my view, a stronger case can be made there. I’ve been known to ascribe cultural traits to my own lot of Scandinavian peoples, but not very seriously and with acknowledgement that this is at best an extremely rough generality (else I’d be obliged to recognise close cultural affinity with Norwegian-descendant Michele Bachmann, which I’d rather not, thanks). But Beale seems to be rather more serious, which is worrisome. My recollection, though, is that he applies ethnic essentialism in pretty much all directions, which, it makes him antisemitic, logically makes him anti-everyethnic, which again is perhaps a sign that this construing of the concept might be troubled. And again, if he’s making any argument in his ‘Out of the frying pan’ piece that PM Netanyahu didn’t approximately also make, it’s not immediately obvious to me.

    What you say is ‘implied’ in Beale’s trollishly titled ‘The merits of anti-semitism’ editorial seems rather astonishing, since that piece for a change doesn’t talk about essentialist ethnic traits at all, contrary to your claim, and no, he neither says nor implies that any modern traits come straight from mediaeval ones. He wonders whether mediaeval leaders of that community were like the ‘idiots running the ADL, ACLU, and the Council of Jews’. (FWIW, I am an ACLU member, and donate to Planned Parenthood.) The nut of it is that he expresses annoyance at the president of Germany’s Central Council of Jews for objecting to comparing abortion with the Holocaust. (I gather that Beale’s antichoice, as he calls it genocide.) His beef with the leadership of the three organisations named is over the reproductive issue, and I doubt that ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero gets a pass for being as gentile as I am.

    For the reasons you cite, his ‘And why might that be?’ piece has the most troubling bits, and to my eyes makes the best case, particularly his paragraph starting ‘Second, understand that’. I have to wonder whether Beale isn’t just ignorant, there: Having attended an Ivy League college, I saw up-close some of the most monied and influential of my countrymen, and they are overwhelmingly still as white-bread as I am. His ‘The world knows who owns’ mantra is an utter crock, but it’s entirely possible he actually believes it. I wouldn’t know. I’m not a connoisseur of right-wing editorials.

    I certainly won’t ask you for examples of what you mean if you say Beale is an antisemite. As to what Owlmirror thinks exemplifies the concept, which is what I asked, I’m still no wiser.

    Rick Moen
    [email protected]

20. @Ann Somerville: You’re right that I’m delighted to have you going around calling me names on the Internet, because that’s surely a good sign I must be doing something right. But I couldn’t be bothered looking up again what specific names those were, because I have a lot better things to do.

    And are you seriously trying to suggest that there’s any distance whatsoever between you and enforced shunning? You’re sort of the flagship.

    But no, I’m not going to even attempt to list Internet ankle-biters.

    Rick Moen
    [email protected]

21. @Ann Somerville: If you could arrange for James May to dislike me, too, that would be like Christmas in summertime, or dessert added to a lovely meal. Thanks!

22. “I think Brad’s intentions were just as he stated – to take SP3 in a less toxic direction by ditching the political aspect and focusing on good works by under-recognized authors – and then things got out of hand (again, though, they got out of hand on both sides).”

    The only way you could think that is if you weren’t paying any attention to what Correia, Torgersen and the other Evil League of Evil authors have been saying since the original Sad Puppies campaign began.

23. @rick That’s a Frankenstein reference (the Arctic).

24. Rick Moen:”But I couldn’t be bothered looking up again what specific names those were, because I have a lot better things to do.”

    Like needling people who call antisemites antisemitic.

25. Trigger warning for tl:dr 😀

    As usual with this mess, nothing is as simple as it first seems. I’ll get around to thoughts of stepping down, but it may be awhile before I do. I’ll also caveat that I’m speaking generally, and not to any one person here.

    I think I’ll start with the issue of consent.

    GRRM has said that the issue of who was notified and whether they said yes is a non-issue, and to a large extent, I agree with him. Vox Day is one guy half way around the world who read my stuff, liked it, and added it his slate without my consent. Allegedly, this is a problem because Vox Day has odious personal beliefs, therefore anyone who remains on the slate must either share them or at least not object too strenuously.

    There are a lot of problems with that argument. There’s probably someone reading my work right now who has odious personal beliefs. That person might recommend my work to others, or they might trash it. Either way, I have zero control over any of it. Am I to make readers fill out a beliefs questionnaire before I allow them to read my work? That’s kind of ludicrous. My sense is that a lot of you here agree with that part.

    But I’m not done talking about consent, because there’s an analogy here to sexual assault / sexual harassment, and in this context, consent matters quite a lot. A victim of sexual assault / sexual harassment is often subjected to intense and hostile scrutiny. “What were you wearing? Why did you go to his apartment if it was only a first date? Had you been drinking? Did you tell him no? Maybe he just misunderstood. Did you scream or struggle? Did you fight back?”

    After the scrutiny, the hostile judgments come out. “You’re lying. You wanted it. You’re just trying to ruin his/her reputation. Well, you sure didn’t fight back hard enough. What did you expect going out dressed like that?”

    And then the victim gets told how they should have behaved and what they should or shouldn’t have done. Once we get to the shoulds, it’s the victim’s fault. “You shouldn’t have gone to his apartment (so whatever happened is your fault).”

    Hostile scrutiny/hostile judgments of the nominees? Yeah, it’s there. “Well you must agree with them, then. You say you don’t endorse the political stuff? Well you’re sure not objecting hard enough.” etc. We’ve been called racists, sexists, fascists, Vox Day supporters, bitches, curs, etc.

    Shoulds? They’re there, too. “You should denounce VD, BT, LC, racism, sexism, all-the-isms. You should step down. Stepping down is the only way to take yourself out of it and to make yourself pure again.”

    Consent, in this context, matters quite a lot. It’s kind of like “I consented to watch a movie. I did not consent to sex.” Unfortunately, many people have been quick to conflate the two, that if you consented to the movie, you also consented to the sex, or if you consented to a non-political rec list, that you also therefore consent to everything that came next.

    In a word, No. Stop.

    I define my narrative, and I define what I do or do not consent to. You want to call me a naive fool, go for it. But stop trying to shove me into someone else’s narrative. I find it disingenuous, and it steals my voice.

    SP got political. I didn’t.

    As for this year’s SP being more diverse than last year’s – it is. It was a step in a good direction, and yes, it was a step I wanted to encourage. I stand by that. Leaving aside things like movies where you can’t assign gender, SP3 was almost 25% female. Some of the categories were majority female, and more would have been except for those who declined or withdrew. Shorts? Annie, Kary, Megan – 3 out of 5. Editors? Sheila, Anne, Toni – also 3 out of 5.

    As to whether I’ve spoken out about not liking the rhetoric on the SP side, I said this on April 23rd. “I also don’t agree with the thrust of anti-SJW comments prevalent in the larger Puppy discourse. If the Puppies’ goal is to bring attention to good but overlooked works, the whole SJW-heads-exploding thing is both off-topic and mean-spirited in a way I don’t approve of.”
    http://karyenglish.com/2015/04/on-anger-power-and-displacement-in-the-hugos-part-one-of-possibly-several/comment-page-1/#comment-13835

    Perhaps you didn’t see it? Or was it that I didn’t fight back hard enough?

    Before I go on, I’d like to address the likely objection that comparing the SP backlash to things related to sexual harassment and assault trivializes the experiences of the victims of those crimes. Let me be clear – I am a survivor of those crimes. So when I say that hostile post-SP scrutiny feels a lot like hostile post-harassment / post-assault scrutiny, I know exactly what those things feel like, and I am speaking from my own lived experience. While the acts in the harassment / assault I experienced were worse than the post-SP stuff, the scrutiny and hostility experienced afterward is worse now because I’ve found it to be more de-humanizing and more widespread.

    So now let’s talk about stepping down.

    We nominees have been told we should be ashamed of ourselves, that we’ve taken Hugo spots from people who deserved it, that we’re horrible people, that we should step down, that people will never read or buy our books again, that certain people in the industry will refuse to work with us, that the “taint” will be indelible, etc.

    I’m not fond of shame campaigns. They have a lot in common with bullying. In many cases, they _are_ bullying. For me, bowing to a shame campaign when I have done nothing wrong would only serve to encourage and perpetuate the idea that bullying works. So one of the reasons I won’t step down is because I don’t want to contribute to a precedent where future nominees can be shamed – or threatened, or bullied – off the ballot.

    What happened to Annie Bellet made me very angry. In her withdrawal statement, she said that she didn’t make her decision based on pressure. She never said there wasn’t any. She later confirmed that there was in a comment on Jim Hines’ blog. http://www.jimchines.com/2015/04/choosing-sides/ Apr 27, 2015 @ 21:12:43

    Annie made her decision based on what was right for her, and I support her 100%. I’d have supported her if she stayed in, too. She’s the nominee, so she gets to decide.

    But here’s where I get stubborn: I will not bow to the same pressure. Part of the reason for not bowing is how angry I am over what happened to Annie. If someone says “I’ll never buy your books again because of this,” I’m fine with that. Personal choice and all.

    If someone says “I’ll never buy your books again / I’ll never work with you again… unless you step down,” or “I guess if you don’t step down you must agree with [whatever thing the nominee has already said they don’t endorse]” that’s not OK. That’s manipulation and emotional blackmail. I refuse to enable that behavior.

    Then there’s the Vox Day thing. So if Vox Day says your name, even without your consent, you have to step down? Do people really want to give him that much power? So he can hold any author or any work hostage any time he wants? That seems wacky to me.

    OK, you guys, repeat after me: “Sorry, Goblin King. You have no power over me.”

    Another issue – is the work worthy? De gustibus, right? Some people won’t think so (which I hear happens with a lot of works, even in non-Puppy years), but some do, including the editor who bought it. Being a newer author, I’m going to take Mike Resnick and others at their word that the work is worthy. If it’s worthy, I think it should stay.

    I have to ask a question though – some of you have said that mine is the only worthy story in its category.* So at least there’s one, right? From what I’ve heard, a lot of people thought Annie’s was worthy, too. Would you really be happier if there were none? Is that what you ultimately want? I guess it makes it easier to employ the blanket No Award that way.

    Also, it troubles me that the social pressure to step down seems to have been directed at the women. Maybe everyone is getting it in equal measure and I’m just not aware of it, so I’m trying to reserve judgment on that.

    I guess if it were me, I’d rather have one than none.

    [*Disclaimer – I not at all knocking the stories of my fellow nominees. (I haven’t read them yet, waiting for the packet) Nor am I saying that I think mine is better than any of theirs. I’ve certainly seen reviews that say otherwise. 😉 ]

    So in short (HA!), I’m staying in.

26. @kary Lots of interesting points in there–thank you. Much to consider.

27. If Beale’s ‘Time to go’ editorial makes him an antisemite because he thinks the Jewish population of Europe have no long-term future there, then apparently The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg and PM Benjamin Netanyahu are also antisemites, as they have expressed the same view in about the same way.

    Beale did not simply predict that French Jews, in the long term, are going to be treated as aliens in their own country, and therefore they were better off emigrating. He asserted that French Jews deserve to be treated as aliens in their own country.

    Goldberg and Netanyahu are not claiming that Jewish citizens of France (or any other country) deserve alienation. Goldberg (like the secular Zionists of the 19th century) is simply arguing that emigration to Israel is a practical response to an injustice that is unlikely to get better. Netanyahu wants more Jews to immigrate to Israel, but immigrants do not need to renounce ties to their former homeland in order to immigrate (Israeli law permits multiple citizenship).

28. Kary, my voting against a slate is voting against a slate. It says nothing about you personally or your views or how much I’d like (or dislike) your work. If Charles Stross (who wrote my favorite novel) were on that slate, I’d still vote against the slate.

    If you came to Sasquan, I’d be just as interested in protecting you and your family against harassment as I would any other member.

    Also, it troubles me that the social pressure to step down seems to have been directed at the women. Maybe everyone is getting it in equal measure and I’m just not aware of it, so I’m trying to reserve judgment on that.

    If so, that is disturbing.

29. Hi, Dierdre,

    I’ve got no problem with voting against a slate being a vote for voting against a slate. 🙂

    Re: Sasquan – I have some concerns re: harassment, but I’m coming anyway. Hopefully my concerns are unfounded.

    Cheers,

    Kary

30. More games with great stories:

    Immortal Defense
    Star Control 3
    Starflight and Starflight II
    Most everything ever published by Infocom
    Nomad
    Dragon Wars (the RPG from the ’90s, that is)
    The rest of the Bard’s Tale series
    Botanicula

31. Kary, well, I hope to meet you there, then!

    Also, as I’m saying to all the nominees: may the odds be ever in your favor.

32. Then there’s the Vox Day thing. So if Vox Day says your name, even without your consent, you have to step down?

    Nope.

    For myself it’s a matter of slates and the statements they made. Vox told his supporters to vote for you whether they had read you or not, to support his slate an opinion. From the beginning of Brad announcing Sad Puppies was countering ‘affirmative action’ and claiming the Hugos were skewed towards ideology. He claims his process was democratic and yet Correia claims the Evil League of Evil made the decisions for SP3s slate, considering many choices were left out of the thread for the Sad Puppies nominations and Brad’s refusal to address this and happy to repeat there’s little reason to think Correia isn’t telling the truth.

    I would never tell someone that they should bow out. It’s a personal issue each author must face. I can absolutely understand why an author would not want to be a part of the above, regardless of any pressure otherwise. But I can’t hold it against an author if Vox put them on the slate without their consent and whether he would take them off or not if they asked. I can hold it against them however if the author chooses to support such voting tactics.

    I don’t need someone to drop off the ballot, I’m perfectly happy with them stating they don’t support slates, or Sad Puppies 3, which from the very announcement was insulting both towards the Worldcon voters and past authors and works. Sorry, but I can’t support anyone connected willingly to movements to win awards that openly state they both don’t care about the award or insult past winners. Doesn’t matter to me if it’s you or Jim Butcher.

    It’s cool you’re staying in. I’m against the way your were nominated. So it goes. That’s no reason for anyone to personally insult you though, and I’d imagine if you win those attending will cheer. Because even if the person you’re not rooting for wins, it’s an honor to win and I’d congratulate you on such an achievement in your career.

33. @Seth Gordon: No, his ‘Time to go’ piece simply doesn’t say that. Cite from its body text if you assert otherwise. If you’re correct, I’ll buy you $beverage-of-choice, but I just skim-read the thing again, and didn’t find it. If you can point it out, I’m going to ask for my Lasik money back.

    For the rest, I’ll quote what I just wrote to a third-party observer in e-mail:

    > As your husband seems confused as to why someone might think Theodore
    > Beale is an anti-Semite:
    >
    > http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/and-why-might-that-be.html

    I never expressed confusion. I asked a question. It was a real and specific question.

    As chance would have it, someone on File770 finally did point me to that editorial, and his ‘Second, understand that the resurgence of anti-semitism is happening for a reason’ paragraph sure comes across as antisemitism. At bare minimum, Beale is woefully confused about who actually owns capital, but that’s probably excessive charity. Anyway, I agreed with my interlocutor that this one of his three examples is quite troubling.

    I don’t spend much time reading Beale, so I have no general knowledge of the range of his views. Also, when I say something like ‘Please cite a specific example of $foo’, there is no subtext. I am not, for example, asserting $foo’s non-existence; I am asking for a specific example.

    Someone might have gotten around to asking why I was asking for an example. Honestly, it was more on instinct than for any well thought out reason. I guess part of it is that I’m really weary of the vague ideological name-calling irrespective of whether it is merited or not, and in my experience the most efficient way to reduce vagueness noise is to politely ask people to also be specific.

    I got weary of the vague ideological name-calling because it isn’t even interesting. Being told that $foo is a particular type of bad person debases the discussion for no compensating gain.

    In the background of that, I not only honestly didn’t know whether Beale is an antisemite or not, but also didn’t (and don’t) care very much, either. (For what it’s worth, I was for a decade the gentile half of a Jewish family, having been engaged to be married to an Israeli, years before I met Deirdre.)

    Not only is the discourse on that subject annoying as hell and tedious, but also it suffers the ‘If so, so what?’ problem that I find afflicts many of the more fervent discussions on the Internet. Granting the datum for the sake of discussion, what do generic-you imagine that I’ll be able to do with it in the real world? Are generic-you one of those people for whom the most important thing on the planet is to decide whom you hate and why? And generic-you think it’s vital that everyone else know? Why? So we can amend the master list of bad people?

    Sorry, but that is pretty much a crap discussion, for reasons having no connection with whether the specific charge is true. And if I put a slight stick in the spokes of a crap discussion’s wheels, by asking the speaker to provide at least one example of a suspiciously vague generality, it’s worth the trouble.

    Rick Moen
    [email protected]

34. Re: being on a slate unwittingly or unwillingly – I honestly feel that since the slate’s nominees can’t be sure their nomination was fairly come by, that declining your nomination is the right thing to do under the circumstances. No one has to do the right thing of course, but I reserve the right to judge you as a person accordingly.

35. David W: For the sake of discussion I would note how I judge a person in this situation has more to do with whether they honor the call of their own conscience.

    I respect those who were troubled and withdrew. I also respect those who are the passive recipients of slate nominations if their consciences are easy about accepting the result.

    How I judge their actual nomination is a separate matter that I can address as a Hugo voter.

36. @Rick, I quoted from the body text already, here. He’s asserting that the Jews of France (citizens of the Republic, equal under the law since Napoleon, some of whom descend from families that have lived in France for centuries) “are not, in the end, even French”.

    If he had said “are not considered French by their Christian neighbors”, we would be having a very different sort of conversation.

    There are republicans in France who believe that liberté, égalité, fraternité should apply to all citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion, and there are antisemites in France who believe that the Jews are aliens in their midst. Beale makes it crystal clear whose side he is on.

    I don’t particularly care how Beale ranks on the cosmic scale of human badness, and observing that the word “antisemite” describes his attitude doesn’t really affect his position on the scale. However, to the extent that Beale is (aspires to be) a political actor, this language does say something about where he hopes to find political allies.

37. @Mike Glyer: Agreed. While I personally feel like I couldn’t accept a nomination from the Puppies (and that’s regardless of politics–I simply don’t believe that many of the nominating members actually read the works under consideration, and I’d have no interest in accepting nominations from people who hadn’t read my work) I think there’s a far leap from “I wouldn’t do that if it were me” to “You shouldn’t do that.” Everyone’s got their own conscience to keep, and it’s not my job to keep it for them. I have enough trouble with my own demons, thanks. 🙂

38. alexdvl: “I think I’m going to have to dispute your view of Among Others, Zoe’s Tale, and The Diamond Age as YA.”

    I won’t argue with you; they are all very questionable as YA to me. I only included them in my list because they could be considered so.

    Frankly, I think YA has gotten almost zero look-in on the Hugo Best Novel category, and I don’t agree that all YA is written at a lesser level; some of it is brilliant. I think it deserves its own category.

39. Rick Moen thinks a discussion of anti-Semitism is a “crap discussion.”

    That says it all.

40. @Kary – I’m not going to tell you you need to withdraw either- after all, your story stands out in your category, the others are real dogs. It is nice to see something reasonable there.

    I am troubled though, to see the puppies being applauded for improving diversity. There are still many fewer women this year than before. I don’t think we should be thanking them for working slightly less hard than last year at keeping out anyone other than white males. (For example Brad is still standing by his ‘affirmative action’ accusation)

41. @Rick If you’re trying to avoid “the more fervent discussions on the Internet” because you don’t enjoy them, I can make a quick and easy recommendation for how.

42. @Seth Gordon: I saw that phrase ‘those who are not, in the end, even French’ and it was my best guess about what you were referring to, but you already know that it’s problematic because of the multiple senses of ‘French’.

    If I were to become a naturalised French citizen, I would absolutely be French by the laws of the Republic, but in a different sense not French at all, but rather a Norwegian-ethnic who is a French citizen and speaks French with a horrific accent. Beale the ethnic essentialist presumably feels that French people of Algerian descent or birth are not French in the ethnic-French sense either, and when ‘War is coming’ in his view, both are (in his view) going to not to be welcome among the ethnic French.

    In fact, skimming the editorial again, isn’t he basically predicting that the French will ‘address their Muslim problem’ and that they as a whole will cease offering protection from attacks like the recent Hebdo one, when he says in the indicated sentence that ‘The French are not going to patrol their own streets indefinitely’? That isn’t saying the objects of those attacks don’t deserve being citizens.

    You can charge that Beale is being coy and thinks that, especially in light of things said elsewhere. I can’t see that he says it.

    The ‘Why might that be?’ editorial strikes me as your compelling example, with its (erroneous) recitation of alleged control. The ‘Time to go’ one you’re applying is a great deal more equivocal.

    The reason Beale cites for cessation ‘patrolling their own streets’ is a bit sinister: ‘[W]artime is seldom kind to those who have made it clear that their loyalties do not lie with those who are actively involved in waging it’, which resembles a standard ‘not loyal’ antisemitic talking point (and I would call at best erroneous).

    Rick Moen
    [email protected]

43. “SP3 was almost 25% female”

    Woo-hoo. A whole 1/4. I’m sure they must be very proud that they’ve thrown women a few bones there.

    As far as women being the only ones “pressured to withdraw”, I don’t think that’s true. After Kloos and Surridge withdrew, the only male Puppy nominees left in the fiction, related and fan categories were those who’ve been quite open on the Internet about being Puppies. There’s never been any question about whether they would withdraw their nominations (as in, not).

44. @Nick Mamatas: Rick Moen thinks a discussion of anti-Semitism is a “crap discussion.”

    I will gladly accept your non-existent apology. What I said, of course, was that merely going around calling people antisemites on the Internet is an excellent example of a crap discussion. Mere ideological namecalling is tedious, and I don’t think it’s even a point sensible people would challenge.

    Would you mind ringing James May’s number? If I’m going to have people clumsily misrepresent what I’ve said, I’d rather it were done by a professional.

    Rick Moen
    [email protected]

45. @Rick Tedious? You would know, clearly.

46. Rick’s nose is out of joint because I was the third party that pointed him to a blog post that, had he taken three seconds to look instead of three days to pose and strut, he could have found himself.

    And no, merely calling people antisemites is not in and of itself a crap discussion—if the people are actually antisemites.

47. Fair enough, Mike. Everyone is free to follow the dictates of their own conscience, which is what I’m doing myself by expressing my own feelings about how the slates unfairly affected the outcome of the Hugo nominee vote, especially in categories where the slates swept all or nearly all of the nominations. That’s what this is all about for me at least, not the silly culture war or other assorted baggage. If a slate-nominated work wins a Hugo, that’s what happens. But I’m still putting an asterisk next to it in my record book.

48. @Rick I was wrong before when I said you didn’t know what you were playing with. I take it back. Sorry about that. Unfortunately, it means you’re also no longer the scariest man in sci-fi. It was a short reign.

49. @Rick Moen

    I don’t know *why*, but you really do seem to be going to great lengths to argue a point that, apparently, you don’t care about that much — or consider a bad discussion.

    When one does it about something unimportant, it comes across as mere pedantry — heaven knows I’ve done that — but I am beginning to wonder why you are making such a big deal out of giving Beale so much benefit of the doubt — especially since he is known for making quite a bit of hay out of ambiguous statements.

    I have no doubt Beale doesn’t consider himself an anti-Semite, like many of the people who are pro-Zionist in order to fulfill prophecies of Armageddon. However, the worldview he foments (such as the example of France above) certainly play into the hands of active anti-Semites at *best*, and at worse are just a mask for how Beale really feels — that Jews are the Other, and should tread carefully since they don’t belong where We are.

    “Are generic-you one of those people for whom the most important thing on the planet is to decide whom you hate and why? And generic-you think it’s vital that everyone else know? Why? So we can amend the master list of bad people?”

    No, but I, as someone named Schwartz with curly-ish hair and a hooked nose, do prefer to know my anti-Semites. Just as I, as someone who does not stay in his closet, prefer to know my homophobes. And if I see someone quoting an anti-Semite or a homophobe approvingly, I know what sort of rhetorical battleground I might be headed towards.

    “And if I put a slight stick in the spokes of a crap discussion’s wheels, by asking the speaker to provide at least one example of a suspiciously vague generality, it’s worth the trouble.”

    And now that you’ve been presented with a bunch, by people who were not the speaker, you appear to have gotten on the discussion’s seat and started pedaling, instead. Again; why do you feel it so important to, in effect, defend Beale? To try and come up with explanations for why what he said should be read as inoffensively as possible?

    That’s not “sticking a spoke in the wheels of discussion”, especially not when you keep at it.

50. @Nick Mamatas: The concept of asking @Owlmirror what specifics he/she had in mind (and also whether he/she had anything specific in mind at all) — and my doing so largely because asking someone for a real-world of his/her vague claim seems in general to help reduce levels of vague ideological noise — is actually not difficult to grasp. You could give some concept a try, some time. But maybe you’d rather not, in which case, your kink is OK by me.

Comments are closed.