The fight over Hugo awards

[Sigmaleph]

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?

[ironbite]

I'm pretty sure with UP, it's the latter.

[Ultimate Paragon]

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.

[Sigmaleph]

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.

[Askold]

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.

[ironbite]

Oh god did he really use Goobergate's favorite shit argument for this?

Ironbite-BWHAHAHAHA!

[Ultimate Paragon]

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.

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/

I'll admit, I'm not the most knowledgeable person about this, but I do research from both sides.

[Cerim Treascair]

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!

[Ultimate Paragon]

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.

[davedan]

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.

[niam2023]

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.

[Canadian Mojo]

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.

[Ultimate Paragon]

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.

[Askold]

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.

[Ultimate Paragon]

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"!