The alt-right is shitting up the Hugo slates again

[SCarpelan]

If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?

Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.

They might not all even have been shit. They just had to have been not good enough compared to others that were not nominated. It could have been a protest against the open manipulation of the nomination process by the sad/rabid puppies that left (what the voters thought were) more deserving nominees out.

[Ultimate Paragon]

UP, for a guy who loves his scarecrow pics you've missed a huge detail in this guys argument. Here, I'll help.

‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’

The thing is, the Sad and Rabid puppies detractors never argued that.

They haven't, but I think defenders of the Hugos have.

What Correia argued was this:

“The ugly truth is that the most prestigious award in sci-fi/fantasy is basically just a popularity contest, where the people who are popular with a tiny little group of WorldCon voters get nominated and thousands of other works are ignored. Books that tickle them are declared good and anybody who publically deviates from groupthink is bad. Over time this lame ass award process has become increasingly snooty and pretentious…

That's the argument, that there is a tiny little group of WorldCon voters who vote out pulp and vote in lefty stuff he doesn't like. An argument that has never been based on anything but hearsay.

Arguing that this argument is based on thin air =/= arguing that ‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’ thereby converting the rest of Davefreer's rant to a festering pile entirely composed of decaying dingo bollocks.

Yeah, there's evidence that this actually happens.  Why don't you take a look down below?

UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?

You're missing the point.  The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.

Not really. In fact, it could say any number of things. Like that most sci-fi readers tend to lean to the left, and they tend to enjoy left-leaning books because of that (and before you say anything, it's impossible to completely write bias out of your book. It will be there). Or perhaps it says that Having left-wing leanings tends to correlate with being a better writer. Or any number of other possibilities.

Personally, I'm going with the theory that science fiction is naturally biased towards the left wing, because the right wing is so thoroughly and virulently anti-science. Sure, I have no conclusive evidence, but then, neither do you.

If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?

Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.

I think there's another explanation:

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

UP, for a guy who loves his scarecrow pics you've missed a huge detail in this guys argument. Here, I'll help.

‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’

The thing is, the Sad and Rabid puppies detractors never argued that.

They haven't, but I think defenders of the Hugos have.

That's nice dear. Are your thoughts based on anything that can be traced back to the real world?

Also, cart before the horse. Counter puppy reactions happened after the puppys tried to puppy-hump the Hugos. Does not establish that the puppies had anything but their own paranoia to go on to begin with.

[Eiki-mun]

If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?

Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.

I think there's another explanation:

I think it's more likely that people, disillusioned with the open manipulation of the nominations and angry at what they see as a subversion of the democratic process, voted No Award in a protest vote, than that it can all be traced back to a post on Twitter with two (2) likes of some guy offering people money to vote a certain way.

[dpareja]

UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?

You're missing the point.  The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.

Amusing, considering the only author to win both the Hugo and Nebula Awards in consecutive years was described in this thread as "a virulent homophobe who is actively trying to make life harder for me and mine".

[SCarpelan]

You still need to prove that people took Chu seriously and changed their votes if you want to make the claim that the voting was ideologically tilted. The only thing this proves is that he is an asshole and tried to influence the vote.

Edited to clarify my point.

[niam2023]

I would not need his money to vote against a scumbag like John C. Wright.

I'd vote No Award before countenancing any of his filth.

The same goes for Pox Day.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

You still need to prove that people took Chu seriously and changed their votes if you want to make the claim that the voting was ideologically tilted. The only thing this proves is that he is an asshole and tried to influence the vote.

Edited to clarify my point.

Coming as it does from the nest of alt-right scum and villainy is reason enough to doubt the validity of that screenshot.

But yeah, if it happened that would indeed be a shitty thing.

EDIT: Yeah, he said that he was trolling when he did it. So probably-not an actual super sneaky attempt to break the Hugos. Transparently silly as offering money for a confidential vote with no strings to make the recipient actually do as you ask for the price of a two rounds at the pub is a very shitty conspiracy.

[Ultimate Paragon]

UP, for a guy who loves his scarecrow pics you've missed a huge detail in this guys argument. Here, I'll help.

‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’

The thing is, the Sad and Rabid puppies detractors never argued that.

They haven't, but I think defenders of the Hugos have.

That's nice dear. Are your thoughts based on anything that can be traced back to the real world?

How about Alastair Reynolds?

This is an attempt by various elements of the American right to regain the centre ground of SF from some perceived shift to the liberal left.  It’s predicated on a falsehood … as any analysis of recent Hugo nominations and winners will show: there is no demonstrable bias from within the field against writers of faith, or those who have right-leaning politics. And yet, the Puppies keep recounting the same doctrinal narrative, with a seemingly endless appetite for name-calling.

UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?

You're missing the point.  The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.

Amusing, considering the only author to win both the Hugo and Nebula Awards in consecutive years was described in this thread as "a virulent homophobe who is actively trying to make life harder for me and mine".

It's a relatively recent thing.

If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?

Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.

I think there's another explanation:

I think it's more likely that people, disillusioned with the open manipulation of the nominations and angry at what they see as a subversion of the democratic process, voted No Award in a protest vote, than that it can all be traced back to a post on Twitter with two (2) likes of some guy offering people money to vote a certain way.

Except that this "open manipulation" had been done by left-wing authors beforehand.  John Scalzi admitted as much:

But it’s also not entirely honest to say that it’s not been done before, either. Lots of people suggest or at least remind people of their own works for consideration (I do the latter); lots of people suggest or at least remind people of the works of others for consideration. Just this year I suggested Abagail Nussbaum for Fan Writer; there she is on the ballot. Was my recommendation causative? Maybe, maybe not (I suspect not — she’s built a reputation over a number of years), but the point is I made the recommendation.

Not to mention the fact that the sad puppies' 2015 nomination slate included left-wing authors like Anne Bellet, Kary English, and Rajnar Vajra.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

UP, the puppies claimed prior to their campaign that there was a clique of individuals that were consistently voting in progressive works.

Pointing to people organising in response to the puppies campaign does not in fact establish that said clique existed to begin with or that it's will was dominating the Hugos.

Yes, Reynolds is a Science Fiction author. Glad we've established something solid.

[SCarpelan]

Except that this "open manipulation" had been done by left-wing authors beforehand.  John Scalzi admitted as much:

But it’s also not entirely honest to say that it’s not been done before, either. Lots of people suggest or at least remind people of their own works for consideration (I do the latter); lots of people suggest or at least remind people of the works of others for consideration. Just this year I suggested Abagail Nussbaum for Fan Writer; there she is on the ballot. Was my recommendation causative? Maybe, maybe not (I suspect not — she’s built a reputation over a number of years), but the point is I made the recommendation.

Okay, so maybe the voters protested against what they perceived as making the vote political. I haven't followed the issue enough to know the particulars. I am just trying to say that the "No Award" votes don't prove what you say they prove.

Not to mention the fact that the sad puppies' 2015 nomination slate included left-wing authors like Anne Bellet, Kary English, and Rajnar Vajra.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Are you trying to claim that sad puppies did not have a political agenda?

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

So, having failed to establish that the puppies rose in opposition to anything substantial at all or that the "no award" votes in response to the Sad and Rabid Puppies slates establish some sort of post-facto evidence of the secret cabal the Sad and Rabid Puppies were established to oppose or that said secret cabal bends the Hugos to it's collective will UP quits the field having thoroughly botched his attempt to create suspicion in the minds of anyone on this board that the potboiler Puppy fantasies of super secret lefty Hugo cabals are true.

And what did he bring to the table? An article that sought to knock down it's own strawman with the power of math that didn't even do that properly and a tweet by one of his online mobs hated unpersons that was probably made in jest who wouldn't have had a substantial impact on the Hugos even if the author were 100% sincere, because there's no way of controlling how they vote once they run away with your price of a case of beer given in exchange for their vote.

Just another day for the diamond-dense, pig-iron stubborn defender of the status quo.

Not to worry, tomorrow there'll be another alt-right freakout, some more unread links to unreliable sources and splashpics that increase the page size to the fourth power that will still do his cause more harm than good when all's said and done.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Except that this "open manipulation" had been done by left-wing authors beforehand.  John Scalzi admitted as much:

But it’s also not entirely honest to say that it’s not been done before, either. Lots of people suggest or at least remind people of their own works for consideration (I do the latter); lots of people suggest or at least remind people of the works of others for consideration. Just this year I suggested Abagail Nussbaum for Fan Writer; there she is on the ballot. Was my recommendation causative? Maybe, maybe not (I suspect not — she’s built a reputation over a number of years), but the point is I made the recommendation.

Okay, so maybe the voters protested against what they perceived as making the vote political. I haven't followed the issue enough to know the particulars. I am just trying to say that the "No Award" votes don't prove what you say they prove.

That's possible, but I don't think that's it, because the sad puppy nominations weren't as political as many seem to believe.

Not to mention the fact that the sad puppies' 2015 nomination slate included left-wing authors like Anne Bellet, Kary English, and Rajnar Vajra.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Are you trying to claim that sad puppies did not have a political agenda?

No, what I'm saying is that there is no right-wing conspiracy to take over the Hugos, at least not on behalf of the sad puppies.

As for your requests for evidence that this happened before, Correia claims that he was subjected to whispering campaigns before the puppies existed.  I'll try to find evidence of that.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Good luck with that.

And I'll buy that it's not a "conspiracy" given the etymology of the latin root word is "breath together" which implies whispering. The Sad and Rabid Puppies announced their intention to band together to make SF safe from imaginary leftists by blaring their paranoia through every Marshal amp and foghorn they could lay their paws on.

[Cloud3514]

Sad Puppies? Not political? Because apparently their entire purpose being to counter a perceived liberal bias in the Hugos is somehow not political now.