FSTDT Forums
Community => Entertainment and Television => Topic started by: Askold on April 10, 2015, 04:30:33 am
-
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/09/george-rr-martin-right-wing-broken-hugo-awards?CMP=share_btn_fb
http://www.catherynnemvalente.com/holding-the-hugos-and-the-english-language-hostage-for-fun-and-profit/
So... Apparently people have drawn politics into SF/F writing awards. Not the first time it has happened but this time Vox Day, Torgersen and their crew have been far more successful.
As Torgersen wrote:
[Twenty years ago] “if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds”. Nowadays, he claims, the same jacket is likely to be a story “merely about racial prejudice and exploitation, with interplanetary or interstellar trappings”.
OH NO! The damn commies are talking about social issues in their books rather than writing about brainless swashbuckling heroism where conservative heroes save damsels in distress! THIS ATROCITY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE! And as a result they organized voting to make sure that "proper" books win the award.
G.R.R. Martin complains that from now on Hugo awards will be won by the books that have had the best organized campaigns rather than those that were most liked by the readers.
-
I'm with GRRM on this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't SF [/i]always[/i] had an aspect of social commentary about it? A little show from the 60s called Star Trek comes to mind, maybe these people have heard of it.
-
Actually, from what I've read, the Hugo Awards have been political for quite some time. According to Larry Correia, certain participants at Worldcon were orchestrating a smear campaign against him and his books because of his political views. Sad Puppies was created as a reaction to that, in order to expose liberal bias.
Also, Vox Day isn't involved in Sad Puppies.
It's not an anti-diversity campaign, either. Entertainment Weekly was forced to admit that.
CORRECTION: After misinterpreting reports in other news publications, EW published an unfair and inaccurate depiction of the Sad Puppies voting slate, which does, in fact, include many women and writers of color. As Sad Puppies’ Brad Torgerson explained to EW, the slate includes both women and non-caucasian writers, including Rajnar Vajra, Larry Correia, Annie Bellet, Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Ann Sowards, Megan Gray, Sheila Gilbert, Jennifer Brozek, Cedar Sanderson, and Amanda Green.
This story has been updated to more accurately reflect this. EW regrets the error.
Quite frankly, the media coverage of Sad Puppies is fucking shameful.
http://news.investors.com/040715-746871-entertainment-weekly-commits-a-journalism-foul.htm?ven=yahoocp&src=aurlled&ven=yahoo (http://news.investors.com/040715-746871-entertainment-weekly-commits-a-journalism-foul.htm?ven=yahoocp&src=aurlled&ven=yahoo)
I do think Martin's criticisms have validity, however.
-
Actually, from what I've read, the Hugo Awards have been political for quite some time. According to Larry Correia, certain participants at Worldcon were orchestrating a smear campaign against him and his books because of his political views. Sad Puppies was created as a reaction to that, in order to expose liberal bias.
These groups have been trying to rig the voting for three years at least and may have been created as a reaction to other such movements but according to Martin they haven't been successful before the latest Hugo. His fear is that now that these groups grew big enough to be really able to influence the results this will become the new normal with different blocks fighting over Hugo and there is no return to the old.
Also, Vox Day isn't involved in Sad Puppies.
If you read the links you will see that Vox Day is involved with a group called "Rabid puppies."
-
Actually, from what I've read, the Hugo Awards have been political for quite some time. According to Larry Correia, certain participants at Worldcon were orchestrating a smear campaign against him and his books because of his political views. Sad Puppies was created as a reaction to that, in order to expose liberal bias.
These groups have been trying to rig the voting for three years at least and may have been created as a reaction to other such movements but according to Martin they haven't been successful before the latest Hugo. His fear is that now that these groups grew big enough to be really able to influence the results this will become the new normal with different blocks fighting over Hugo and there is no return to the old.
Again, a perfectly valid fear.
Also, Vox Day isn't involved in Sad Puppies.
If you read the links you will see that Vox Day is involved with a group called "Rabid puppies."
Which has no actual connection to Sad Puppies.
-
Also, Vox Day isn't involved in Sad Puppies.
If you read the links you will see that Vox Day is involved with a group called "Rabid puppies."
Which has no actual connection to Sad Puppies.
...But it is another group doing the same thing as Sad puppies.
-
Actually, from what I've read, the Hugo Awards have been political for quite some time. According to Larry Correia, certain participants at Worldcon were orchestrating a smear campaign against him and his books because of his political views. Sad Puppies was created as a reaction to that, in order to expose liberal bias.
These groups have been trying to rig the voting for three years at least and may have been created as a reaction to other such movements but according to Martin they haven't been successful before the latest Hugo. His fear is that now that these groups grew big enough to be really able to influence the results this will become the new normal with different blocks fighting over Hugo and there is no return to the old.
Again, a perfectly valid fear.
Also, Vox Day isn't involved in Sad Puppies.
If you read the links you will see that Vox Day is involved with a group called "Rabid puppies."
Which has no actual connection to Sad Puppies.
Except of course the ideological motivation is the same and the slates are 75% identical (yes, of course I did the math). For most purposes, the various kinds of Puppies are the same thing.
-
Actually, from what I've read, the Hugo Awards have been political for quite some time. According to Larry Correia, certain participants at Worldcon were orchestrating a smear campaign against him and his books because of his political views. Sad Puppies was created as a reaction to that, in order to expose liberal bias.
These groups have been trying to rig the voting for three years at least and may have been created as a reaction to other such movements but according to Martin they haven't been successful before the latest Hugo. His fear is that now that these groups grew big enough to be really able to influence the results this will become the new normal with different blocks fighting over Hugo and there is no return to the old.
Again, a perfectly valid fear.
Also, Vox Day isn't involved in Sad Puppies.
If you read the links you will see that Vox Day is involved with a group called "Rabid puppies."
Which has no actual connection to Sad Puppies.
Except of course the ideological motivation is the same and the slates are 75% identical (yes, of course I did the math). For most purposes, the various kinds of Puppies are the same thing.
Any cause is bound to attract more than one movement. Just look at animal rights. You have admirable organizations like the ASPCA, and you have shitheads like PETA. But they have the same ideological motivation, and there's an overlap in their positions. And with Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, you'd expect the overlap to be greater because the focus is narrower.
-
Their "focus" is to make people vote conservative writers rather than "leftists." It does not matter that their candidates aren't 100% the same, as long as they organize more votes for "proper" writers to draw the awards away from the unwanted writers.
-
Their "focus" is to make people vote conservative writers rather than "leftists." It does not matter that their candidates aren't 100% the same, as long as they organize more votes for "proper" writers to draw the awards away from the unwanted writers.
Switch "conservative" and "liberal" around, and you have the modus operandi of their enemies.
And I think that's an exaggeration. From what I gather, most of the folks involved in Sad Puppies don't want to rig the awards in their favor, but to combat the politicization of the Hugo Awards.
However, I disagree with their tactics. A more ethical response than what Sad Puppies did would simply be to try and recruit as many extra voters from everywhere you can. That would dilute any established unnatural voting. Organized voting lists was a poor response, and comes across as Sad Puppies pushing an agenda of their own rather than trying to restore a natural state.
-
I already had my own opinion of the conservative hacks that started this whole shitstorm before I took a look in this thread, but UP certainly hasn't helped.
I've developed a heuristic based on past FQA commentary involving gates and ethics. Somewhere, somehow, the narrative UP sides with ends up being full of shit.
Switch "conservative" and "liberal" around, and you have the modus operandi of their enemies.
From what I gather, most of the folks involved in Sad Puppies don't want to rig the awards in their favor, but to combat the politicization of the Hugo Awards.
You're seeing liberal political intent where there was none. This is obviously a reactionary conservative intrusion into an apolitical nomination process.
-
I already had my own opinion of the conservative hacks that started this whole shitstorm before I took a look in this thread, but UP certainly hasn't helped.
I've developed a heuristic based on past FQA commentary involving gates and ethics. Somewhere, somehow, the narrative UP sides with ends up being full of shit.
Switch "conservative" and "liberal" around, and you have the modus operandi of their enemies.
From what I gather, most of the folks involved in Sad Puppies don't want to rig the awards in their favor, but to combat the politicization of the Hugo Awards.
You're seeing liberal political intent where there was none. This is obviously a reactionary conservative intrusion into an apolitical nomination process.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png/300px-Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png)
-
From what I gather, most of the folks involved in Sad Puppies don't want to rig the awards in their favor, but to combat the politicization of the Hugo Awards.
Seems to me you're making a positive claim there and I'm not convinced. You're the one that has to provide evidence of this prior politicization.
-
From what I gather, most of the folks involved in Sad Puppies don't want to rig the awards in their favor, but to combat the politicization of the Hugo Awards.
Seems to me you're making a positive claim there and I'm not convinced. You're the one that has to provide evidence of this prior politicization.
Fair enough. Here you go:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/28/hugo-awards-science-fiction-reading-politics-larry-correia-column/8282843/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/28/hugo-awards-science-fiction-reading-politics-larry-correia-column/8282843/)
And as for the proposed responses to this? Well, most of them are horrible, as GRRM points out:
http://grrm.livejournal.com/418643.html (http://grrm.livejournal.com/418643.html)
-
Can I just point out that we've got politics creeping into a fucking award for science fiction writing? How fucked up is that?
-
Vox Day, you really deserve to be impaled through your fingers and strewn up from a tree.
What SP and RP did is classless and vulgar.
Coincidentally, I've noticed the same thing Ironchew noticed - as far as ethics and gates are concerned, UP will side with the side that shrieks the loudest about the meaningless facade called "ethics".
-
Vox Dei actually writes?
-
Yeah, he's written several sci-fi novels.
-
Yes. Though it can barely be called writing. He collected internet witticisms and one liners and called it a book.
He was expelled from a scifi group for calling someone a half-savage or something. Good to know time hasn't made him more mature about these scifi literary groups.
^ None of them very good, I subjected myself to them quite a while ago.
-
Vox Day, you really deserve to be impaled through your fingers and strewn up from a tree.
What SP and RP did is classless and vulgar.
Coincidentally, I've noticed the same thing Ironchew noticed - as far as ethics and gates are concerned, UP will side with the side that shrieks the loudest about the meaningless facade called "ethics".
....holy shit you're right!
-
Vox Day, you really deserve to be impaled through your fingers and strewn up from a tree.
What SP and RP did is classless and vulgar.
Coincidentally, I've noticed the same thing Ironchew noticed - as far as ethics and gates are concerned, UP will side with the side that shrieks the loudest about the meaningless facade called "ethics".
You mean like how Global Warming is a façade communists hide behind?
And just for the record, I sympathize with Sad Puppies, but I have some criticisms of my own.
-
Vox Day, you really deserve to be impaled through your fingers and strewn up from a tree.
What SP and RP did is classless and vulgar.
Coincidentally, I've noticed the same thing Ironchew noticed - as far as ethics and gates are concerned, UP will side with the side that shrieks the loudest about the meaningless facade called "ethics".
....holy shit you're right!
There's a term that describes people like that, but I'd probably be, at least, told to take it to F&B if I used it.
-
Any cause is bound to attract more than one movement. Just look at animal rights. You have admirable organizations like the ASPCA, and you have shitheads like PETA. But they have the same ideological motivation, and there's an overlap in their positions. And with Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, you'd expect the overlap to be greater because the focus is narrower.
In this metaphor, who is the ASPCA and who is PETA?
From what I gather, most of the folks involved in Sad Puppies don't want to rig the awards in their favor, but to combat the politicization of the Hugo Awards.
Which they did by... politicising the Hugo Awards. Brilliant.
If next year the leftists get the bright idea of gaming the system exactly the same way the puppies did, then the awards will become basically a political popularity contest. One the right-wing will probably lose, even. And while I'm sure they'll be happy to blame John Scalzi for it, the fact of the matter is it'd be their fault. They called up that which they cannot put down.*
However, I disagree with their tactics. A more ethical response than what Sad Puppies did would simply be to try and recruit as many extra voters from everywhere you can. That would dilute any established unnatural voting.
But the reason the Hugos are what they are is because the voter distribution is drawn from a certain pool (worldcon attendees). The puppies already fucked with that, by starting a campaign to recruit voters from their political allies. There's no guarantee that recruiting more people from everywhere you can means you're recruiting people with the same distribution of opinions on SF&F. Indeed, you're probably not.
If the Hugos are to be the Hugos, fucking up the voting pool even more is not a solution.
*no discussion of the right wing of SF&F is complete without a Lovecraft reference.
-
My opinion, ban Vox Day and everyone affiliated with that piece of human rubbish.
-
Vox Day's already been kicked out of the SFWA. I know very little about Larry Correia & co., but they strike me as standard, if whiny, Republican types. VD, on the other hand, is an entirely different level of crazy. See, for example (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vox_Day#Insights):
Ironically, in light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable.
Oh wait, I forgot. John C. Wright - also stranger and loopier than a Penrose staircase.
-
Any cause is bound to attract more than one movement. Just look at animal rights. You have admirable organizations like the ASPCA, and you have shitheads like PETA. But they have the same ideological motivation, and there's an overlap in their positions. And with Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, you'd expect the overlap to be greater because the focus is narrower.
In this metaphor, who is the ASPCA and who is PETA?
Sad Puppies are the former, whereas Rabid Puppies are the latter.
From what I gather, most of the folks involved in Sad Puppies don't want to rig the awards in their favor, but to combat the politicization of the Hugo Awards.
Which they did by... politicising the Hugo Awards. Brilliant.
If next year the leftists get the bright idea of gaming the system exactly the same way the puppies did, then the awards will become basically a political popularity contest. One the right-wing will probably lose, even. And while I'm sure they'll be happy to blame John Scalzi for it, the fact of the matter is it'd be their fault. They called up that which they cannot put down.*
Like I said, I don't agree with their tactics. I'm afraid things might go into a downward spiral. Already, their opponents are trying to get their nominees excluded from the awards altogether.
But the Hugo awards were already politicized.
However, I disagree with their tactics. A more ethical response than what Sad Puppies did would simply be to try and recruit as many extra voters from everywhere you can. That would dilute any established unnatural voting.
But the reason the Hugos are what they are is because the voter distribution is drawn from a certain pool (worldcon attendees). The puppies already fucked with that, by starting a campaign to recruit voters from their political allies. There's no guarantee that recruiting more people from everywhere you can means you're recruiting people with the same distribution of opinions on SF&F. Indeed, you're probably not.
If the Hugos are to be the Hugos, fucking up the voting pool even more is not a solution.
*no discussion of the right wing of SF&F is complete without a Lovecraft reference.
Okay then, what solutions would you suggest? I'm all ears.
-
In this metaphor, who is the ASPCA and who is PETA?
Sad Puppies are the former, whereas Rabid Puppies are the latter.
But you have already stated that you dislike the Sad Puppies' tactics. What exactly makes them commendable?
Or are they just the lesser of two evils, in your view? If so, out of what merit other than "not being associated with Theodore Beale"?
Like I said, I don't agree with their tactics. I'm afraid things might go into a downward spiral. Already, their opponents are trying to get their nominees excluded from the awards altogether.
But the Hugo awards were already politicized.
In what sense and to what extent?
I mean, as far as I know the SF&F fandom skews left, or at least the part of it that attends Worldcon does. Given that we should expect right wingers like Correia et al will be unpopular to some extent (Correia says he has suffered harassment for his views. I have no reason to doubt this and I don't endorse it or condone it).
But in that sense, the Hugos are politicised in pretty much the same way as any human activity. I don't know that the there's any practical solution to that other than demographic shift, and even then it wouldn't be apolitical, it would just be politicised in a different way.
GRRM (http://grrm.livejournal.com/418285.html) argues at length that the awards themselves are not unfairly shutting out right-wing writers. I'm not exactly sure if it bears out, but he would know better than me. If you have an argument on that, I'm happy to hear it.
Okay then, what solutions would you suggest? I'm all ears.
I don't have one. It would be nice if the puppies went off to organise their own awards for that rewards whatever it is the want Sci-Fi to be and let the Hugos be the Hugos, but I don't think they'll do that on their own and I don't know how to get them to do it.
Like I said, the Puppies are calling up what they cannot put down. Right now the situation might be solved by unilateral action on their part, and that's not going to happen. If it goes much further, and other groups decide to start replicating their tactics, then a unilateral solution is impossible. Hurray for Nash equilibria.
Then again, it just might go away on its own when people lose interest, who knows. Politics are complicated.
-
Well, the results are in, and it's not pretty:
http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/08/24/lots-of-hugo-losers/ (http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/08/24/lots-of-hugo-losers/)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/TbRXNJJJbgIkE/giphy.gif)
Congratulations, you just proved the puppies right.
-
Congratulations, you just proved the puppies right.
Uhh... No. People voted "None of the above" when all the candidates were puppies and they didn't like any of them. Besides, when you call a racist a racist and he claims that you are slandering him and therefore being just as bad as he is it is called false equivalency. That is what the Puppies are doing now. Their campaign backfired so now they are trying to make it look like the other side is just as bad (or even worse) while claiming that they themselves haven't done anything wrong.
-
Well, the results are in, and it's not pretty
Really? I thought sane fans made the best of the nominations given to them.
Congratulations, you just proved the puppies right.
UP, we sent you back to Vox and co. with your tail between your legs. Your pitiful movement had its 15 minutes of fame; it will never muster enough popularity to influence the Hugos again.
It's a lot like Gamergate that way, actually.
-
Congratulations, you just proved the puppies right.
Uhh... No. People voted "None of the above" when all the candidates were puppies and they didn't like any of them. Besides, when you call a racist a racist and he claims that you are slandering him and therefore being just as bad as he is it is called false equivalency. That is what the Puppies are doing now. Their campaign backfired so now they are trying to make it look like the other side is just as bad (or even worse) while claiming that they themselves haven't done anything wrong.
The puppies are hardly perfect, but the reaction to them just proved how much the Hugo Awards have turned into a clique.
Have you read the article provided? I thought it was a pretty good take on the matter.
Well, the results are in, and it's not pretty
Really? I thought sane fans made the best of the nominations given to them.
There's so much spin in that statement, it might as well be a tilt-a-whirl.
Congratulations, you just proved the puppies right.
UP, we sent you back to Vox and co. with your tail between your legs. Your pitiful movement had its 15 minutes of fame; it will never muster enough popularity to influence the Hugos again.
Famous last words.
It's a lot like Gamergate that way, actually.
You know, I never thought you of all people would be in favor of crony capitalism.
-
Ok so someone who's opinion I give a shit about explain to me how this is a bad thing.
-
Well, the results are in, and it's not pretty:
http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/08/24/lots-of-hugo-losers/ (http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2015/08/24/lots-of-hugo-losers/)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/TbRXNJJJbgIkE/giphy.gif)
Congratulations, you just proved the puppies right.
...in what sense? The puppy claim, roughly, is "good sci-fi is being passed over for ideological reasons". The counter-puppy claim is "no, we're just voting for the stuff we like and the stuff you think is good sci-fi we think is not".
Voting a bunch of no-awards is compatible with both of those claims. The puppies think the no-awards were a political move. The non-puppies think the nominations were artificially filled with stuff that did not deserve a Hugo so the right thing to do was voting No Award.
Huzzah, nobody proved anything to anyone.
-
Ok so someone who's opinion I give a shit about explain to me how this is a bad thing.
1) Hugo nominees are chosen by people who go to Worldcon.
2) "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies" are sad (and foaming from the mouth?) because most of the nominees are liberals who have written stories that these puppies don't like.
2) Puppies do not believe that anyone can really like liberal bullshit books and therefore assume that there must be a commie conspiracy where the liberals have turned "what books do you like the most" contest into a political war on the right wingers, mom and heterosexuals.
3) Puppies set up specific lists from which all their members must choose certain books in order to ensure that the "right" books will win the Hugo awards.
4) Because the communist hippy atheists are not in fact involved in a massive conspiracy and only vote books based on what they like the Puppies easily make their lists pass.
5) Most people actually don't like the books on the Puppy lists and therefore they vote for "No award" to be given rather than giving all the awards to books chosen on political and ideological basis rather than their own merit.
6) Puppies again believe that this must be an evil conspiracy because there is no way that anyone could dislike "proper American-Christian fiction."
...Now all we need is that someone about whom Ironbite gives a shit will make the same explanation.
-
Ok so someone who's opinion I give a shit about explain to me how this is a bad thing.
1) Hugo nominees are chosen by people who go to Worldcon.
2) "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies" are sad (and foaming from the mouth?) because most of the nominees are liberals who have written stories that these puppies don't like.
2) Puppies do not believe that anyone can really like liberal bullshit books and therefore assume that there must be a commie conspiracy where the liberals have turned "what books do you like the most" contest into a political war on the right wingers, mom and heterosexuals.
3) Puppies set up specific lists from which all their members must choose certain books in order to ensure that the "right" books will win the Hugo awards.
4) Because the communist hippy atheists are not in fact involved in a massive conspiracy and only vote books based on what they like the Puppies easily make their lists pass.
5) Most people actually don't like the books on the Puppy lists and therefore they vote for "No award" to be given rather than giving all the awards to books chosen on political and ideological basis rather than their own merit.
6) Puppies again believe that this must be an evil conspiracy because there is no way that anyone could dislike "proper American-Christian fiction."
...Now all we need is that someone about whom Ironbite gives a shit will make the same explanation.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/842/314/6b2.png)
For starters, the Sad Puppy objective was to prove that the radflake clique in SF/F publishing and its associated fan groups/networks are the dominant player in this niche, and the clique makes sure to fix things to protect its influence at the expense of genuine meritorious work by folks not part of their clique, and in this context that means voting as a block along a slate, usually determined by a consensus opinion determined via backchannels. This is, indeed, what happened.
The Rabid Puppies claim that the Hugos (and associated bits) are beyond saving, and instead should be destroyed and replaced. The Rabid goal this year was to gauge the strength and numbers of the opposition.
The radflake crowd did both parties' work for them admirably. Only in categories considered unimportant (the fan stuff and the Film/TV stuff) were neither No Award nor clique-approved candidates winning. What happened at the ceremony was predicted, months in advance.
Why don't you talk to the Puppies before making judgments about them? That's what I did.
-
'genuine meritous work not done by members of the clique'
You mean like the malignant hack John C. Wright? I hate the bastard and hate his work, too.
And I'd rather not talk to Theodore Beale the Woman Smasher or his underlings, thank you very much.
-
'genuine meritous work not done by members of the clique'
You mean like the malignant hack John C. Wright? I hate the bastard and hate his work, too.
And I'd rather not talk to Theodore Beale the Woman Smasher or his underlings, thank you very much.
I'm not familiar with Mr. Wright or his work, but his writing deserves a fair chance.
And believe me, I hate Vox too. But being a bigoted shithead doesn't automatically make him wrong. If you don't want to talk to the Rabid Puppies, fine. I tried, and I think they're a bunch of assholes. On the other hand, I found the Sad Puppies to be very civil and reasonable, for the most part. I still don't quite agree with their methods, but I can at least understand their grievances.
-
Ok so someone who's opinion I give a shit about explain to me how this is a bad thing.
1) Hugo nominees are chosen by people who go to Worldcon.
2) "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies" are sad (and foaming from the mouth?) because most of the nominees are liberals who have written stories that these puppies don't like.
2) Puppies do not believe that anyone can really like liberal bullshit books and therefore assume that there must be a commie conspiracy where the liberals have turned "what books do you like the most" contest into a political war on the right wingers, mom and heterosexuals.
3) Puppies set up specific lists from which all their members must choose certain books in order to ensure that the "right" books will win the Hugo awards.
4) Because the communist hippy atheists are not in fact involved in a massive conspiracy and only vote books based on what they like the Puppies easily make their lists pass.
5) Most people actually don't like the books on the Puppy lists and therefore they vote for "No award" to be given rather than giving all the awards to books chosen on political and ideological basis rather than their own merit.
6) Puppies again believe that this must be an evil conspiracy because there is no way that anyone could dislike "proper American-Christian fiction."
...Now all we need is that someone about whom Ironbite gives a shit will make the same explanation.
Well I guess you're gonna have to do as nobody else chimed in.
So in a nutshell, the voter base chimed in and the Puppies are sad and UP is still UP and believes this somehow matters in the long run?
Ironbite-got it.
-
People GAVE his work a fair shot - and they decided they hated it, and tossed it out in a No Awards vote.
-
People GAVE his work a fair shot - and they decided they hated it, and tossed it out in a No Awards vote.
That statement is... questionable, at best.
And the "No Award" thing is just a demonstration of the "it's my ball and you can't play" mentality. I mean, imagine if the Oscars or the Grammys decided to do that.
-
They aren't, and they haven't - American Sniper for example.
The people have the right to choose not to like John C. Wright.
-
They aren't, and they haven't - American Sniper for example.
The people have the right to choose not to like John C. Wright.
What does American Sniper have to do with anything?
And yes, they do have the right to choose to not like him. But there's serious reason to doubt that the Hugo Awards are still controlled by the people. Tor Books seems to have an inordinate amount of influence.
-
The Oscars and such have chosen works like American Sniper, there's no chance that some bizarre "commie take over" could cast out right wing works from there.
The Hugo Awards are about voting and choice. If the people do not like Right Wing works, accept that.
-
The Oscars and such have chosen works like American Sniper, there's no chance that some bizarre "commie take over" could cast out right wing works from there.
The Hugo Awards are about voting and choice. If the people do not like Right Wing works, accept that.
I was using a hypothetical scenario.
And why do you keep insisting that the people choose? There's very strong reason to suspect that's not as true as you think it is.
-
Because they were offered a choice of Wright and Beale's "works", and they said "no thank you".
-
The Oscars and such have chosen works like American Sniper, there's no chance that some bizarre "commie take over" could cast out right wing works from there.
The Hugo Awards are about voting and choice. If the people do not like Right Wing works, accept that.
I was using a hypothetical scenario.
And why do you keep insisting that the people choose? There's very strong reason to suspect that's not as true as you think it is.
Wait, who chose other than the people? Lizardmen?
Are you saying that there was actual fraud at the Hugos, or just that there were influences you dislike?
-
I'm pretty sure with UP, it's the latter.
-
I'm pretty sure with UP, it's the latter.
Indeed.
Because they were offered a choice of Wright and Beale's "works", and they said "no thank you".
Oh, if only it were that simple. See, the Hugo Awards have suffered heavily from politicization. There's a mountain of evidence to suggest that Tor Books and the "CHORFs" (as the puppies call them) have created a clique-like atmosphere of political intolerance, complete with de facto blacklisting. I'm too tired to go into the details right now, but suffice to say, something's very wrong at WorldCon.
Maybe if you actually tried to get their side of the story, you'd be a little more open-minded. While I have some reasons to criticize the puppies, they do have legitimate grievances.
-
OK, but influences you dislike doesn't mean the people didn't choose. It means they made their choice for what you think are the wrong reasons.
-
The Oscars and such have chosen works like American Sniper, there's no chance that some bizarre "commie take over" could cast out right wing works from there.
The Hugo Awards are about voting and choice. If the people do not like Right Wing works, accept that.
I was using a hypothetical scenario.
And why do you keep insisting that the people choose? There's very strong reason to suspect that's not as true as you think it is.
The "reason" to suspect that this is not true is "I don't think that anyone can see things differently than I do and if people act differently it is only because they are evil."
Really. Here is my theory:
1) Some people are 100% certain that they are correct in everything and their religion/politics/fandom/everything is the correct one. This is not unusual in humans and a lot of people are amazed at "how stupid" some people are for even thinking that X would be wrong or inferior...
2) Some people take this POV one step further. Not only are they correct, in fact, the truth is so evident that everyone else must also know what this universal truth is. Therefore if, like in this particular scenario, someone says that book X isn't a good book it just can't be because they think that the book isn't good. It has to be because they want to hurt you or otherwise spite you by claiming something that they know to be a lie.
For example, my wife's friend said that he mother often shouted "you don't really think that! You just pretend to because you want to oppose me!" when they she disapproved of something that her daughter did. (She didn't go into details, so whether her mother disapproved her sexuality or music tastes or some other lesser subject was left unclear...)
The Puppies have a persecution complex. They see conspiracies where there is none. They created corruption to prove that corruption existed. Was there a counter movement? Yes. But most of the opposition to the Puppies happened because no one liked the books they had chosen or the fact that they were corrupting the Hugo awards. The grand Liberal-Atheist-Feminist-Hippie-Vegan-conspiracy that prevented homophobic or Christian writers from getting Hugo awards never existed and it was simply the fact that most Worldcon-goers in general didn't like their books that prevented them from winning.
And complaining about the "No-awards" thing is like complaining that your robbery victim fought back. Even if people did advertise "Vote for none of the above if you don't like any of them" people didn't choose it just to spite the Puppies, odds are that they really didn't like the books.
-
Oh god did he really use Goobergate's favorite shit argument for this?
Ironbite-BWHAHAHAHA!
-
The Oscars and such have chosen works like American Sniper, there's no chance that some bizarre "commie take over" could cast out right wing works from there.
The Hugo Awards are about voting and choice. If the people do not like Right Wing works, accept that.
I was using a hypothetical scenario.
And why do you keep insisting that the people choose? There's very strong reason to suspect that's not as true as you think it is.
The "reason" to suspect that this is not true is "I don't think that anyone can see things differently than I do and if people act differently it is only because they are evil."
Really. Here is my theory:
1) Some people are 100% certain that they are correct in everything and their religion/politics/fandom/everything is the correct one. This is not unusual in humans and a lot of people are amazed at "how stupid" some people are for even thinking that X would be wrong or inferior...
2) Some people take this POV one step further. Not only are they correct, in fact, the truth is so evident that everyone else must also know what this universal truth is. Therefore if, like in this particular scenario, someone says that book X isn't a good book it just can't be because they think that the book isn't good. It has to be because they want to hurt you or otherwise spite you by claiming something that they know to be a lie.
For example, my wife's friend said that he mother often shouted "you don't really think that! You just pretend to because you want to oppose me!" when they she disapproved of something that her daughter did. (She didn't go into details, so whether her mother disapproved her sexuality or music tastes or some other lesser subject was left unclear...)
The Puppies have a persecution complex. They see conspiracies where there is none. They created corruption to prove that corruption existed. Was there a counter movement? Yes. But most of the opposition to the Puppies happened because no one liked the books they had chosen or the fact that they were corrupting the Hugo awards. The grand Liberal-Atheist-Feminist-Hippie-Vegan-conspiracy that prevented homophobic or Christian writers from getting Hugo awards never existed and it was simply the fact that most Worldcon-goers in general didn't like their books that prevented them from winning.
And complaining about the "No-awards" thing is like complaining that your robbery victim fought back. Even if people did advertise "Vote for none of the above if you don't like any of them" people didn't choose it just to spite the Puppies, odds are that they really didn't like the books.
(http://i.imgur.com/pUS69Lb.jpg)
Look, I don't think the Puppies are perfect by any means. But I base my criticisms on reality.
There have been cliques at the Hugo Awards for a very long time. With cliques come whispering campaigns against the "other". George R. R. Martin (One of the Puppies' more reasonable opponents, in my opinion) admitted so himself. And these days, the loudest and meanest clique is the radflakes, who smear authors they disagree with politically.
Besides, for years, the Hugos were portrayed as belonging to the entire fandom. Now everybody says they only belong to WorldCon. This is goalpost moving of the highest caliber, and a tactit admission that, yes Virginia, there is an "in crowd".
Why don't you try reading about Larry Correia's experiences?
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/09/a-response-to-george-r-r-martin-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/ (http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/09/a-response-to-george-r-r-martin-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/)
I'll admit, I'm not the most knowledgeable person about this, but I do research from both sides.
-
Did you miss the words "Here is my theory"?
Go back and read it again.
Now do it again.
AGAIN, YOU WHINY SACK OF SHIT!
Now stop trying to pick fights and insisting you're right when you've been proven wrong and people are simply expressing personal opinions!
-
Did you miss the words "Here is my theory"?
Go back and read it again.
Now do it again.
AGAIN, YOU WHINY SACK OF SHIT!
Now stop trying to pick fights and insisting you're right when you've been proven wrong and people are simply expressing personal opinions!
If people are expressing opinions, they have to be prepared to defend them. Moreover, they need to back them up with facts, not more opinions.
And I haven't been proven wrong.
-
Was there any evidence of any organised collective to choose award winners based on the identity of the writer prior to the sad/ rabid puppies (fuck that's a terrible name to self ascribe)?
Now is there evidence of an organised collective to choose nominees on the political lines of who the identity of the writer by the sad/ Rabid puppies?
If you answer those two questions honestly, you'll prove yourself wrong.
-
There was an organized effort by the rabid / sad puppies to get "good Christian" works chosen in the Hugos. That much is easily able to be seen. They swamped the place.
Vox Day boasted about it. Outright said he orchestrated it with some others.
-
And I haven't been proven wrong.
That would be because there is nothing to prove.
Democracy won. The team you're rooting for lost in spite of rigging the game. Either get over it or you prove that the 'no award' write-in vote is fraudulent either by violation of procedural rules that would disallow it or stuffing the ballot box.
-
Was there any evidence of any organised collective to choose award winners based on the identity of the writer prior to the sad/ rabid puppies (fuck that's a terrible name to self ascribe)?
Now is there evidence of an organised collective to choose nominees on the political lines of who the identity of the writer by the sad/ Rabid puppies?
If you answer those two questions honestly, you'll prove yourself wrong.
I'll agree that the tactics (and extent thereof) of the Sad Puppies were rather questionable, the Rabid Puppies even more so. But there's a difference between an organized campaign to choose winners, and an organized campaign to choose nominees. The former is far more questionable than the latter.
Is there an organized collective dedicated to choosing the winners? I don't think there is one, as such. But I think that there are cliques, there are de facto blacklists, and there are political influences.
There was an organized effort by the rabid / sad puppies to get "good Christian" works chosen in the Hugos. That much is easily able to be seen. They swamped the place.
Vox Day boasted about it. Outright said he orchestrated it with some others.
No, there was an organized effort to get them on the ballot. That's a completely different deal.
And I haven't been proven wrong.
That would be because there is nothing to prove.
Democracy won. The team you're rooting for lost in spite of rigging the game. Either get over it or you prove that the 'no award' write-in vote is fraudulent either by violation of procedural rules that would disallow it or stuffing the ballot box.
They didn't "rig the game", they used completely valid tactics that were going on for years, if not decades.
And I never said that the "no award" votes were fraudulent, merely that using them so often is guilt by association, and furthermore, shows exactly the political biases the puppies were talking about.
-
They wanted to TAKE OVER the ballot so that all the candidates would be the ones that they like. That is the problem. They got enough people to vote for the exact same list (or two lists later) that all the people who weren't part of their cliques and voted for whoever they liked got their candidates pushed out of the list merely by the fact that their votes were for a diverse group of candidates.
And the "no candidate" was only used because the only thing that people can agree is that if none of the people they like can get to the list that has been taken over by a politically motivated campaign then at least there should be an option to vote for no one.
-
They wanted to TAKE OVER the ballot so that all the candidates would be the ones that they like. That is the problem. They got enough people to vote for the exact same list (or two lists later) that all the people who weren't part of their cliques and voted for whoever they liked got their candidates pushed out of the list merely by the fact that their votes were for a diverse group of candidates.
That is a legitimate criticism, yes. Too many non-puppy candidates were pushed out.
But I don't think they wanted to "take over" the ballot. If they did, I think they would've had a lot more candidates, and we would have seen more all-Puppy selections.
And the "no candidate" was only used because the only thing that people can agree is that if none of the people they like can get to the list that has been taken over by a politically motivated campaign then at least there should be an option to vote for no one.
The problem with that is guilt by association. Most of the authors chosen weren't puppies, merely nominated by them. Essentially, they were punished for something that wasn't their fault. Even George R. R. Martin advised the WorldCon voters not to go for the "No Award"!
-
Did you miss the words "Here is my theory"?
Go back and read it again.
Now do it again.
AGAIN, YOU WHINY SACK OF SHIT!
Now stop trying to pick fights and insisting you're right when you've been proven wrong and people are simply expressing personal opinions!
Chill, Cerim. We have F&B for a reason.