The Three-Puppy Problem 4/24

Posted on by

aka, We, in Some Strange Puppy’s Employ, Move on a Rigorous Line

Today’s roundup brings back Eric Flint, George R.R. Martin, Deirdre Saoirse Moen , Damian G. Walter, Alexandra Erin,  and Steve Davidson, introduces Ciaran, J. T. Glover, Jack Heneghan, and Chris Barkley, and launders a few talking socks. (Title credits go to File 770 consulting editors of the day, NelC and Brian Z.)

 

Eric Flint on The official home page of author Eric Flint

“More on the Hugos from a Dark, Dark Place” – April 23

The best estimate that you will usually encounter of how many people in the U.S. regularly read science fiction and fantasy is five million. There are probably three or four times that many who read F&SF occasionally, and there are certainly fifty or sixty million who enjoy science fiction and fantasy in the dramatic form of movies or television.

So. My solid fan base consists of about one percent—that’s right, ONE percent—of the solid mass audience for F&SF. It rises to perhaps two percent—yeah, that’s right, TWO percent—if we measure everyone who’s occasionally read something of mine against the occasional audience for science fiction and fantasy. And it falls back closer to one percent if we measure my name recognition against the entire audience (including movie-goers and TV-watchers) for our genre.

In other words, the difference between Resplendent Popular Author Me and Pitiful Literary Auteur Whazzername is the difference between tiny (one percent) and miniscule (one-tenth of one percent).

Yes, that’s what all the ruckus is about. The Sad Puppies feel that they have been wronged because Their Tininess has been downtrodden by the minions of the miniscule.

Give me a break. No matter who gets selected for awards by the comparatively tiny crowd of a few thousand people who show up at Worldcons and nominate writers for Hugo awards, they will always—and inevitably—diverge from the broad preferences of the mass audience….

Okay, now I’ll make my second point, which is briefer….

I don’t propose to eliminate any of the existing awards for short fiction. I have no objection to them, in and of themselves, and I have no desire to make those writers who concentrate on short fiction feel slighted in our genre. I simply think that the category of “novels” needs to be expanded into at least three and preferably four award categories.

 

George R.R. Martin on Not A Blog

“Fanageddon” – April 24

What’s even more unusual — though perfectly understandable in context — is that this huge upswell is for SUPPORTING memberships, not attending. In other words, these are people who want to vote on the Hugo Awards, but have no actual interest in attending the worldcon.

But who are they? Are these new members Sad Puppy fans, signing up to vote the Torgersen/ Correia slate to victory? Are these the Rabids, the lockstep legions of Vox Day? Or is this fandom, gathering to defend the integrity of the Hugos? Pronouncements abound, but no one really knows, and no one is likely to know until the envelopes are opened. This will be the most dramatic Hugo night in worldcon history. But not in a good way.

Myself, I think it’s All of the Above. Fans on both sides — or all three sides, if you want to draw a line between the Sad Puppies and the Rabids — are laying down their money to cast their vote. I also think the votes may be way closer than some of the people on “my side” think. I am sensing way too much complacency from fandom. The Puppies dominated the nominations by mustering 200-300 votes for their slate, out of 2000; the fans seem to be counting on the “other” 1800, the voters who scattered their own nominating ballots, to outvote the Pups. And yes, 1800 beats 200 every time… but that does NOT account for all these new members.

 

Ciaran on Geek Ireland

“The Hugo Awards and Puppygate” – April 23

The current day controversies over diversity and identity politics largely come in three flavours. There’s the, you should probably let women and black people into your golf club flavour, which is generally only opposed by those for whom Pepperidge Farm Remembers memes evoke actual nostalgia. Then there are the horseshoe progressives or leftists, who tend to become so insular and extreme that they end up effectively supporting gender and racial segregation. Lastly, there are the reactionary conservatives, who believe that all they hold dear is about to crumble around them because Asami and Korra are bisexual. Both of the latter are as shallow as they are pervasive in these debates, particularly, and hilariously so, the reactionary viewpoint.

 

Damien G. Walter

“SF & Fantasy Publishing needs Industry Awards” – April 23

The Eisner’s announced their shortlists today which, low and behold, managed to be interesting, diverse and relevant to the comic book industry they represent. The Eisner’s are in actuallity what the Hugo awards are often assumed to be – an industry award. The main purpose of the Eisner’s is to serve the comic book industry in the ways such awards do, primarily by raising the profile of the industry’s best work and expanding the audience for the medium overall. On a much larger scale, the Oscars have been fulfilling this role for the film industry for decades. So why doesn’t the SF & Fantasy field have a proper industry award?

The main reason is that the Hugos, and alongside them the Nebulas, come very close to being an industry award without quite fulfilling that role. The Hugos could do, and many people seem to be working to get them there, but they won’t achieve that without becoming much more international and overhauling their voting system.

 

J. T. Glover

“The Hugos: Shenanigans & Unpopular Opinions”  – April 24

But politics are a dirty business! So indeed. The best, most thoughtful comments I’ve read along those lines come from Nick Mamatas. I have not (God help me) followed every corner of this debate, but I do think his points about “next steps” are good. Likewise, I strongly agree that the sword cuts both ways. You can’t engage in politics and then squeal when someone out-politics you. And make no mistake: “eligibility posts” are a form of campaigning, and saying anything less is hypocritical sophistry (even if one thinks, as I do, that they help to shed light on underrepresented people who and works that otherwise get lost in the scrum). Charlie Jane Anders argued after the awards were announced that the Hugos have always been political, and now they’re only political, and I very sincerely hope she’s wrong… but put three people in a room and you have politics.

Is this the end of the Hugos? I can’t count the number of people I’ve read dolefully and/or gleefully saying that this is The End for the Hugos, or that it’s The End under X or Y condition. This is nonsense. If you want it, fight for it. The Puppies figured out a way to mobilize, and so can anyone else, particularly given how few people have historically voted in the Hugos: 40-ish percent near the high water mark. Thousands of votes that don’t get cast are sitting there, ripe for the motivating/wheedling/convincing/mobilizing.

 

Steve Davidson on Amazing Stories

“How I’ll Vote the Hugo’s, Part 2” – April 23

The cabal of troublemakers and malcontents are campaigning strenuously against the No Award option, lumping all three variations together under a nuclear option rubric, and claiming that anyone who endorses it are guilty of discrimination, being tools of the SJW cabal, stifling the diversity of the field.  At least one full round of daily discussion has been devoted to the utter chutzpah of this last claim.  It’s truly mind boggling.  Apparently we’re not allowed to push for true diversity in the field until after we honor fake diversity by giving it a bunch of Hugo rockets.  Pointing out that this is pretty much the way things have worked up till now doesn’t really seem to penetrate.

So here’s an argument in favor of voting No Award (whichever methodology you choose) that I’ve not seen presented before:

Just as the slates proved that the Hugo award nomination process had a flaw that made it vulnerable to manipulation (but only when people who don’t care about the system get involved) voting No Award proves that the final found of voting still works, and works well and as intended.

Voting No Award not only sends a message of displeasure and rejection of nomination campaigns, it also sends a message that the awards system itself is healthy and has worked exactly the way it was intended to.

 

 

Chris Barkley on Facebook – April 24

Under the current Constitution of the World Science Fiction Society, you may nominate a work for a Hugo Award if you are a current member OR an attending or supporting member of the previous Worldcon. This amendment was passed to encourage a continuing number of members to vote every year, regardless of their status.

So, this morning I found out that some people who attend the WSFS Business meeting are floating an idea to discontinue this practice and restrict nominations and… voting only to members of a current Worldcon.

Oh, HELL To the NO!

Are you kidding me? Voting on Hugos has gradually gone UP since this amendment was ratified and now, when some idiots come along and upend our applecart, should we cringe in fear change the rules because we’re afraid they’re going to do it again?

NO, this is how the Sad/Rabid Puppies win; we conform to their actions, we react to demands and THEY WIN.

The benefits that the expansion of voting have provided FAR outweigh the risks. We, the relative sane fans who want to uphold and continue the Hugo Awards, are stronger and better than than these Puppygate (insert appropriate expletive here).

 

Jack Heneghan on exempli gratia

“My Disclaimer” – April 24

I should note that while I am interested in what is going on with the Hugos and would like for the Final Ballot to represent the best of SF for the previous year, I do not participate in the nominating process myself. My backlog of reading material is several decades long and I actually use the final ballot, or short list, to provide me some guidance for reading material for the current year. If I am able to get to a number of items on the list then I will participate in the voting in the appropriate categories.

Looking at the Hugo winners and runners-up over the years will give you good guidance to selecting a reading list. (My problem is not getting to them until the voting is well over.) It will also give you an idea of which authors were consistently honored by the community. (I am really surprised to see that Iain M. Banks only had one nomination in his career. Be sure to put Iain M. Banks on your reading list. To be confused with Iain Banks.)

 

Vox Maximus

“SJWs, a Podcast, and a Special Kind of Lie” – April 24

Because I like to amuse myself, I recently listened to the Nerdvana Podcast on the 2015 Hugo Awards (a two-part series with Part 2 being located here). Minute after minute, I listened to these individuals converse about Vox Day. They mused about his motives. They psycho-analyzed him. They called his family members “stooges”. And they just talked, and talked, and talked about Vox in quite a bit of detail (they also cried–seriously–when they thought about what Vox was “doing” to the Hugo Awards). But do you know the one thing that they did not do? TALK TO VOX DAY HIMSELF. That’s right, these individuals used up precious time speculating about everything from Vox Day’s goals to his potential financial fixing of the Hugo Awards themselves. And yet, they did not talk to him. They did not send him an e-mail with questions. They did not try to contact him on his blog. In fact, they did not even quote anything from his blog or his writings (or a bad paraphrase or two was included). Now it is their podcast, so it’s their decision whether to speak to Vox Day or not. But the point is this: How seriously can you take a bunch of people that speak about one particular individual—an individual who is readily available for comment—without even trying to speak to the actual individual himself? How genuine are the calls for “dialogue” and “understanding” when the people calling for dialogue and understanding don’t actually dialogue with the person that they are talking about and don’t seek to understand that person either. In fact, in my view, talking about Vox Day in such detail without allowing him to speak for himself is just a special kind of lie; a sort of lie of omission, for they omitted to include the very person that they were speaking of even though he would most likely have readily appeared upon request. And this just adds weight to what Vox Day says:  One way or another, SJWs always lie.

 

Alexandra Erin on Blue Author Is About To Write

So, Let’s Talk About The Hugos: A Puppy Primer – April 24

So, Why Do I Care?

Simply put, when I see people making claims based on the most tenuous of intuitions and calling it hard evidence, that bothers me. When I see people trying to police what other people are allowed to write, read, and like while pretending that this is being done to them, that bothers me. I am disturbed at the idea that someone can take such exception to the fact that other people like other things for other reasons that they would reject that in favor of a conspiracy theory and then take drastic action to overturn the supposed cabal.

Basically, I don’t want to read and write in a world when a man who equates the existence of books he doesn’t approve of to false advertising is able to set himself up as some sort of tastemaker-in-chief because he throws a big enough tantrum whenever a book or author he disdains gets too popular for him to make sense of.

The original Sad Puppies initiative predates Gamergate by a couple years, but they’re both powered by the same sense of aggrieved entitlement cloaking itself in phony virtue. Some people, rather than acknowledging that an entire medium/genre will not always reflect their own personal tastes, decide that the relative success of anything they don’t like is a kind of cheat, and by golly, they’re going to do something about it!

So the stakes here are, we either label this nonsense as what it is and find a way to work around the tantrum-throwers, or we just sort of give up and give in.

 

https://twitter.com/demandharmony/status/591410263410266113

 

Deirdre Saoirse Moen on Sounds Like Weird

“Hugo Awards: Blocs, Slates, Lists and Milliscalzis” – April 24

One of the questions when faced with bloc nominating in the Hugo Awards is this: when is something bloc voting/nominating? When isn’t it?

….So, given that Aidan [Moher] and I hang around in the same milliScalzi hood, I feel I can say about how much influence he had this year. Let’s put it this way: it only took 23 nominations to get on the fan artist ballot, and his nomination didn’t make it onto the list.

More Compelling Reasons I Don’t Consider Aidan’s List a Slate

  1. Aidan didn’t highlight his own work. Do I need to explain how the puppy slates differed in that regard?
  2. Aidan posted it on March 9th (though he’d posted novel thoughts earlier), and nominations closed less than a week later. The Sad Puppies 3 slate was posted at the beginning of February. While I could also see a case being made for people just nominating without reading, I believe the extra lead time is a significant factor.
  3. A slate with little to no effective conversions (in the marketing sense, by which I mean people taking action) is not a slate. Given that the fan artist influence didn’t push his candidate up and over, I think the “slate” argument is truly a non-starter.

 

Marsultor13 on Mars Is

“In which this ignorant ass redneck attempts to fisk one of them genius professorial types” – April 24

One such indyvidual goes by the name of Philip Sandifer. And not only is Mr Sandifer powerful annoyed at us yokels not staying down on the farm, (or trailer park as the case may be) he also happens to be a jen-U-wine professor of that there litrature. Now I did try and read Professor Sandifer’s overly long post about why I aint the write type of fan to be voting in them thar Hugo’s rewards, but wouldn’t you just know it? Afore I could even get halfway through that there know-vella I started to notice that a lot of what he was saying just dint make no damned cents.  And given that I reckon I could always use more traffic at this here blog, I decidered to take a page outta Mr. Correia’s book and do me a good old fashioned fisking. As Mr Correia always says, My words will be in bold, his’ins’ll be in eye-talics.

 

Joshua Dyal in a comment on Vox Popoli – April 24

It would be an event of deliciously hilariously irony if all of the nominations for Best Short Story 2016 were parodies of “If You Were a Dinosaur, My Love.”

 

https://twitter.com/shaunduke/status/591602282581614592

Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

108 thoughts on “The Three-Puppy Problem 4/24”

  1. “How seriously can you take a bunch of people that speak about one particular individual — an individual who is readily available for comment — without even trying to speak to the actual individual himself?”

    Vox Day and anyone else who vows to burn down the Hugos isn’t worth directly engaging in conversation on this subject. The future of the Hugos will be decided by people who love them, not those who hate them.

  2. I agree with Chris Barkley–Puppies antics are a lousy reason to revise a voting rule that has increased voter participation.

    Rules, guidelines, policies, and procedures often need revising or updating, and the Hugo rules may need revising or updating. (I think Eric Flint had made a convincing argument that, in fact, the Hugo categories need a substantial restructuring, for example.)

    But I think the unprofessional piddling of the Puppies is a lousy reason to revise -any- Hugo rules. Let the 2015 vote sort out this mess, and let the ease with which a special-interest group dominated the ballot this year be a reminder to many more voters to participate actively in the nominations process next year.

  3. Dear Mr. Glyer,

    Thank you for the link. Greatly appreciated.

    Dear rcade,

    You said:

    “Vox Day and anyone else who vows to burn down the Hugos isn’t worth directly engaging in conversation on this subject.”

    Is this the best that you can offer? The fact is, if Vox Day is not worth directly engaging in conversation, then he is not worth talking about, in a rather personal manner, for hours on end either.

    But IF you are going to talk about him for hours, and psycho-analyze him, and curse him, and discuss his motives, and insult his family, and insinuate that he secretly purchasing memberships for his fans, and claim that he is an evil individual just out for his own gain, and even claim that he is a narcissistic psychopath, and IF he is also readily available for a comment and is able to speak for himself, then you are just being disingenuous and dishonest in hosting such a podcast without giving the main subject of your double-podcast a chance to speak for himself. And that is exactly what the Nerdvana Podcast did.

  4. “But the point is this: How seriously can you take a bunch of people that speak about one particular individual—an individual who is readily available for comment—without even trying to speak to the actual individual himself?”

    Quite. Because he has already said he’s a dishonest interlocutor, so why should anyone give him a chance to lie to them, when they can take what he’s said elsewhere as evidence?

    Taking his word for it allows him to spin whatever tale he likes; he needs to be pinned down to his past history.

    “How genuine are the calls for “dialogue” and “understanding” when the people calling for dialogue and understanding don’t actually dialogue with the person that they are talking about and don’t seek to understand that person either.”

    Having gone over to his blog and tried to start up a dialogue, I can tell you that the Rabid Puppies, at least, don’t want dialogue. Disagree with them, about, say, whether “If You Were A Dinosaur” is a good story, and you’re immediately accused of being a liar. Not just having bad, or different taste — but of being a liar, because no one could *honestly* like that story.

    Heck — it was right at the end of the comment above; ” And this just adds weight to what Vox Day says: One way or another, SJWs always lie.”

    With that attitude, you expect people to come to dialogue, when the presumption is they’re lying no matter what they say?

    I *love* the way the RPs seem intent on making themselves the victims, when their wounds are almost entirely self-inflicted.

  5. Time out for a moment, people. Look around you at this Hugo nomination mess. Please consider that on or about April 3rd Mike and Marianne Swanwick, Ellen Datlow, Eileen Gunn, and some friends went to China. Has anyone been able to contact them? Has anyone heard from them? Or is the “Great Firewall of China,” as Michael calls it cutting them off totally from the SF universe? So, okay, when they re-enter the non-China world, WHO WANTS TO EXPLAIN THIS MESS TO THEM? I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one. I’m blushing just thinking about repeating some of the quotes I’ve read. Is there any way to pick up some of the pieces before they get home?

  6. “Quite. Because he has already said he’s a dishonest interlocutor, so why should anyone give him a chance to lie to them, when they can take what he’s said elsewhere as evidence?”

    That is quite a claim. Can you provide some evidence? I recall that Lena Dunham said that she was an unreliable narrator but do not recall that Vox Day has said that he is a dishonest interlocutor.

  7. I picked a dozen books I’d like to read in 2015 but they are like 900 pages and 40 bucks each and the Kindles ain’t 9.99 neither. No matter how great someone’s rec list is, if it doesn’t arrive until February I can’t use it as a reading guide. Two years of eligibility in some Hugo categories in addition to the Campbell? Oh no there I go with another rules change.

  8. In re: VD as dishonest interlocutor: I am trying to find his own claims about his method, but as a supporter of his writes, likely with good reason:
    ‘When writing he lays deliberate traps. These traps are designed to make those people who skim until offended jump. That way he can easily weed out those who just want to yell Racist! at him from those who actually want to discuss the ideas.”

    This then resulted in a discussion of whether or not he was “trolling” his own blog.

    I have seen (but cannot at the moment put my finger on) his statement of a similar principle.

    To my lights, then, someone wishing to engage in dialogue with him has to weed out what he’s allegedly trying to say about “the ideas” from the stuff that’s supposed to generate a reaction from people “skimming”. This is not a mark of an honest interlocutor — either he is deliberately setting traps for people he speaks with, or he is trying to have it both ways — believing what is inflammatory until he is called on it, at which point he can go “Oh, that was just a test.”

    Neither case makes me particularly trust a word he says about his own intentions, especially since he has made a point about being “unknowable” and doing a cheap imitation of somebody playing n-dimensional chess.

    One can observe the troll without feeding it, or asking it what it wants on the menu.

  9. Is Damien G. Walter as obtuse as he sounds? Sure, the Hugos aren’t an “industry award,” they’re a fan award, presented by a fan convention that’s run by volunteers. But to acknowledge the existence of the Nebulas, and not consider them just as much an “industry” award as the Oscars, which are also a peer award, is massively missing the point. Also: Just how more “international” does he propose the Worldcon be?

  10. He considers the Nebulas as less of an industry award because they only include writers, not editors and publishers (and such) as well. (It’s the next two sentences “The Nebulas are voted for by industry professionals, of a kind, in the membership of the Science Fiction Writers of America. But the SFWAs membership does’t actually include the publishing professionals it would need to be an effective “academy” in the style of the Academy Awards.”)

  11. I’m sort of disappointed that we didn’t get a link to Beale’s interview with David Pakman in this round up.

    It certainly speaks to his… uh… character.

  13. Alexvdl, does he get around to discussing the Hugos at any point? I can’t make out the titles on the shelf behind him so there is not a whole lot to do while he’s talking.

  15. “I’m sort of disappointed that we didn’t get a link to Beale’s interview with David Pakman in this round up.”

    Oof. Between the comments there and elsewhere I’m not sure gamers got his back as much as he thinks they do. Not sure where in the great master plan that fell into.

  16. Ah good point – one doesn’t see any sinister horde slavering over their ballots, does one.

  19. Beale is a troll and a racist troll at that. There is a reason he was thrown out of SFWA. Not someone we should have a dialogue with and his reactions to whatever is decided regarding the Hugos is not that interesting. Just one troll among the many. Better to listen to those who really care about the Hugos.

  20. “Vox Day and anyone else who vows to burn down the Hugos isn’t worth directly engaging in conversation on this subject.”

    As you like. Just remember, we won’t talk to you when you change your mind and decide that you need to talk to us.

    “Alexvdl, does he get around to discussing the Hugos at any point?”

    I forced it in at the very end since Mr. Pakman didn’t see fit to do so at any point. It’s also amusing to learn, after the fact, that his big point about “signs” was something that I never wrote.

    “To my lights, then, someone wishing to engage in dialogue with him has to weed out what he’s allegedly trying to say about “the ideas” from the stuff that’s supposed to generate a reaction from people “skimming”. This is not a mark of an honest interlocutor — either he is deliberately setting traps for people he speaks with, or he is trying to have it both ways — believing what is inflammatory until he is called on it, at which point he can go “Oh, that was just a test.””

    You have it entirely backwards. I am a scrupulously honest interlocutor. Those traps are designed to smoke out the dishonest ones. When I wrote that NK Jemisin and I are not equally Homo sapiens sapiens and someone responds by saying I have claimed to be superior to her or asserted that she is subhuman, I know they are dishonest and probably moderately stupid as well.

    Because I have done nothing of the kind. And what I said is 100 percent honest and factual. I never back up and say “that was just a test” because even the tests are honest. You have to be dishonest to fail them.

  21. Steven, genuine dialogue can happen on another’s turf so long as one observes local standards. While Vox and I don’t agree on a lot, my inherent style seemed to go over fairly well that one time.

    1. Limit your discussion to the topic at hand, and find some points of agreement.
    2. Vox has a style of challenging the newcomer, generally on a point of moral consistency. The big thing here is not to flinch, and not to react emotionally.
    3. Be straightforward.
    4. Do not fall into the typical rhetorical traps of misstating (or misunderstanding) what happened. I think the high context folks read more into statements than was intended. Or perhaps exactly as intended to be misread.

    That’s my own experience, YMMV.

  22. VD — “Just remember, we won’t talk to you when you change your mind and decide that you need to talk to us.”

    You say, before writing a couple of hundred words more. If this is you not talking to us, then I’m not looking forward to when you feel you really have something to tell us.

  23. Oh, hey, I just noticed the namecheck, “consulting editor of the day”! Can I put that on my resumé?

  24. Nope, Vox, I don’t think anyone’s going to be going through you, phrasing, in a long time.

  25. That’s my own experience, YMMV.

    Well the best way to handle VD is Don’t Feed The Troll.
    Don’t feed the troll, people.
    I told Scalzi back in the day not to feed the troll, and he fed the troll and here we are.
    Don’t feed the troll.
    The troll has way more time on his hands to nurse his petty grudges than you do to handle them, so Don’t Feed The Troll; To deprive the troll of the oxygen of publicity, as that’s the only thing he wants from you.
    If you hadn’t fed the troll, GRRM would have finished the Song of Ice & Fire series by now.
    Please don’t feed the troll; It’s not just sensible, it’s preferable to the alternative!

    This has been a public service announcement from the Department of the Bleeding Obvious.

  26. Steve Davidson has a good point, not that I needed more support for the obvious course. You don’t run the race when some of the finalists got there by doping–or by artificially bulking up their nominations with a slate at the expense of works the slatemakers overlooked. No Award isn’t nuclear–it’s a response to bad faith in the nominating process that is perfectly within the letter and the spirit of the rules.

    I also agree with Chris Barkley that reducing the ease of nominating is not the way to go. While the 10-12 fold boost to nominations given by a slate will be hard to overcome by the simple aggregation of fans honestly reading what appeals to them and nominating their favorites, increasing the voting base is part of the solution. I think making nomination harder will scrape off more non-Puppies than Puppies; do not underestimate the power of hate.

  27. It’s interesting how those rightwing culture warriors, while busy engaging in all sorts of sordid behaviour, always have the need to portray themselves as scrupulously honest or straightforward or whatever, like Teddy here.

  28. For those of you who haven’t figued it out, Vox ay is less homo sapien sapien then JK Jemisin, something he readily acknowledges.

    Based on the most recent data, Jemisin (of African descent) is homo sapien sapien.

    Day, at least partially European, is homo sapien with some small Neanderthal and Devosian thrown in.

    What he just posted is an example of his “verbal traps” someone referenced he sets. The alleged read until offended crowd would assume he’s insulting Jemisin. He’s not.

  29. Steve; he actually was, because if you read other stuff by Beale, you will see that he believes only “homo sapiens with some small Neanderthal and Devosian” are capable of building and sustaining civilization. And “homo sapien sapiens” are not.

    So all his talk about not making value judgments is just hot air.

  30. Ryan- Can you link me to his post? Considering that he lays traps for less than careful readers, you might understand that I prefer to see his actual words, with all the surrounding sentences and paragraphs.

  31. ‘What he just posted is an example of his “verbal traps” someone referenced he sets.’

    What a great big steaming pile of horseshit.

  32. “Day, at least partially European, is homo sapien with some small Neanderthal and Devosian thrown in.”

    I think you mean Denisovan or Denisovian.

  33. “Steve; he actually was, because if you read other stuff by Beale, you will see that he believes only “homo sapiens with some small Neanderthal and Devosian” are capable of building and sustaining civilization. And “homo sapien sapiens” are not.”

    The evidence seems pretty clear on this topic. (Note that those human groups that have proven capable of building and sustaining civilization all have mixtures of HSS, Neanderthal and Denisovan genes according to the latest evidence.)

    However, personally, I suspect it comes down to selection (you know, that stuff that Charles Darwin wrote about).

  34. Steve; go to his site and type “African” in the search bar and look at the first three articles (at least, that’s as far as I got), then when you are done, you’ll need a Silkwood style shower.

    You can also search for “time-to-civilization” on his blog.

  35. Day’s words may actually be referenced in one of the roundups but I can’t recall where at the moment. I believe when confronted with that quote he responded with something like “while the science is clear on the DNA issue (Europeans more Neanderthal etc. etc) we don’t know how that may related to other differences” but I don’t have it in front of me.

    By the way, Denisovian genes are associated with some populations in Asia, not Europe.

  38. Another example of these “traps” is the oft-quoted statement that Theo supports acid attacks on emancipated women. The quote most often bandied about is “a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay.”

    Most people don’t catch the preceding context of the sentence, which qualifies by saying “using the utilitarian metric favored by most atheists, a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay.”

    Presumably Theo isn’t arguing in favor of this utilitarian metric, so it’s a misreading to say he supports acid-attacks on women. Or at least the argument demands a closer parsing. If, that is, it’s the type of thing you want to spend your time parsing.

  40. Nat, you are incorrect about SFWA. Editors and publishers are eligible as affiliate members and has always had such members. The problem, if it is a problem, is that they aren’t eligible to nominate or vote on the awards.

  41. Steve Moss — As I understand it (and I could be wrong, as my intellect nowhere approaches the scale of VD’s, I’m sure), VD holds that Africans are pure H. sapiens, while we Eurasians are hybrids of sapiens, neanderthalensis, and demisova, so we gain from hybrid vigor or something.

    This ignores the fact that Africans as a group are more genetically diverse than all non-Africans put together, of course. Or maybe he would hold that means that there are more “defective” genes in the African genome, because it’s more important to put Africans at the bottom of his fanciful race theory than cleave to anything remotely rational.

    As to why anyone should feel the need very often to talk to VD at length when he’s more than generous with his thoughts, apparently even when he’s not talking to us, I don’t know. Just to hear him contradict himself, claim that it’s a trap for the inattentive rather him being deliberately obfuscatory or just confused, and then gloat about how none of us can approach the dizzying heights of his intellect?

  43. @VD: “Just remember, we won’t talk to you when you change your mind and decide that you need to talk to us”

    I’ve been trying to talk to people like you and your commentariat, or Tom Kratman’s, or John C. Wright’s, for years.

    And the vast majority of the talk I’ve gotten back from all those people, all those groups, has been utterly unproductive, save for providing me examples in failures of logic, epistemic closure, and unwarranted abuse.

    Heck — you’re the one right now beating the “SJWs always lie” drum — so it seems that ship has already sailed.

    But I am not going to let you proclaim yourself the victim, as if this war — which is how you are now painting it — was something forced upon you.

    You claim you believe in facts: give Nick Mamatas the facts he has asked for, for example. Let’s see if you can back up your claims with anything other than vague conspiratorial whining.

    “You have it entirely backwards. I am a scrupulously honest interlocutor.”

    No. When you are setting traps for people, you are not. You may be a scrupulously *literal* interlocutor, but the two are not the same.

    I’ve noticed, actually, that you and your kind do specialize in a kind of utterly literal rhetoric. JCW, for example, will go on at great length about how, though he regularly insults people who believe things that Charles Stross believes in the vilest of terms, he didn’t actually insult Charles Stross because he didn’t mention him by name, and therefore it was Stross who insulted *him* first.

    So, no; when you attempt to state a very specific literal truth with the intent to deceive people, or confuse them, you are *not* being an honest interlocutor.

    “Because I have done nothing of the kind. And what I said is 100 percent honest and factual.”

    The fact that you believe “honest” and “factual” are the same here is, indeed, part of the problem.

    Oh — and even for that “factual”:
    “And I am not stating unequivocally that homosexuality is a birth defect for the obvious reason that we don’t know with any degree of certainty that it is an immutable condition determined at birth.” — VD 2015
    ” But even if we set all moral and religious tradition aside, (the wisdom of which is of course debatable), there can still be no question that to the extent nature is responsible, homosexuality is a birth defect from every relevant secular, material, and sociological perspective.” — VD 2010

    In other words, you are *literally* correct that you did not state homosexuality was a birth defect; you provided enough disclaimers and cover for that. Of course, you did state that *if* it was genetic, (or, for that matter, any sort of biological), it was a birth defect. So you wriggle out from your claim when presented it not by defending the *claim*, but by arguing “No, I didn’t say it *was*, I said that if it was biological, it was.”

    Literally true — but not honest. Honesty is more than just precise factual accuracy, as anyone who has been taken in by the small print of a used car salesman could tell you — or most advertising.

    I’ll give you a final clue: When you set out your words in a way designed to confuse and obfuscate, and then describe the people you’ve confused and obfuscated first as “liars”, perhaps you should reconsider your ordering. And your sense of what constitutes “honest discourse”, as well.

  44. Beyond Anon and Brian Z- Thanks for the correction. My spelling is sometimes atrocious.

    “Time to civilization” may just be a hidden reference to Dual Inheritance Theory (DIT), or some other social evolution theory. That’s just a guess, however.

    Calling someone a “savage” is not calling that person “black” unless one equates Africans with savages, as opposed to equating “savage” with behavior.

    Day may or may not be a racist, misogynist, etc.. pig. I don’t know the man personally so I don’t express an opinion one way or the other. He definitely appears to delight in writing which can be read multiple ways, depending on the viewer. That’s not particularly courteous to the reader.

    What I do express an opinion on is a person’s writing. Judge it on its merits, not the personal failings of the author.

  45. It’s weird how many people here feel the need to explain Vox Day and put a positive spin on his comments and activities — he sets “verbal traps,” he’s a strategic planner one step ahead of everyone, ignore his threats at your peril, yadda yadda yadda.

    It is either a sockpuppet flood or an exceptionally good impression of one.

  46. ‘Judge it on its merits, not the personal failings of the author.’

    If you are correct, then this writing IS a personal defect of the author.

  47. NelC: Exactly. It’s not like we have ever suffered a drought of Beale utterances. If he doesn’t think that what he writes and posts actually suffices without extensive supporting personal engagement, he can choose to write differently. Nobody’s owed an interview, and the general public is entitled to assume good faith on the part of someone claiming to make factual statements and to reason based on them.

    And after all, in the good old days, an even larger majority of readers would only ever have had the stories.

  48. Also, many may feel called to be Socrates, but few succeed. And it seems odd to have to tell people who make noisy professions of Christian belief about Jeremiah 17:9 (The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?), and Matthew 23:13 (But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.), and like that.

  50. Nigel- You are correct. And if he’s ever up for the Hugo as best blogger, ding away.

Comments are closed.