Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by LaminatorX on Monday April 13 2015, @11:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the Livejournal-still-works dept.

From the The Guardian.

Introducing the Sad Puppies...

"The shortlists for the long-running American genre awards, won in the past by names from Kurt Vonnegut to Ursula K Le Guin and voted for by fans, were announced this weekend to uproar in the science fiction community, after it emerged that the line-up corresponded closely with the slates of titles backed by certain conservative writers. The self-styled "Sad Puppies" campaigners had set out to combat what orchestrator and writer Brad Torgersen had criticised as the Hugos' tendency to reward "literary" and "ideological" works.

Today's Hugos, Torgersen has blogged, "have lost cachet, because at the same time SF/F has exploded popularly – with larger-than-life, exciting, entertaining franchises and products – the voting body of 'fandom' have tended to go in the opposite direction: niche, academic, overtly to the Left in ideology and flavor, and ultimately lacking what might best be called visceral, gut-level, swashbuckling fun".

Twenty years ago, he writes, "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".

And here we have the Rabid Puppies definitely not mentioning GamerGate:

Another group of allied rightwing campaigners, dubbing themselves the Rabid Puppies and led by Vox Day, real name Theodore Beale, have also added their voices to the block-voting campaign against what Day called "the left-wing control freaks who have subjected science fiction to ideological control for two decades and are now attempting to do the same thing in the game industry".

And finally a bit of Martin:

"Call it block voting. Call it ballot stuffing. Call it gaming the system. There's truth to all of those characterisations. You can't call it cheating, though. It was all within the rules. But many things can be legal, and still bad ... and this is one of those, from where I sit. I think the Sad Puppies have broken the Hugo awards, and I am not sure they can ever be repaired," he wrote.

"If the Sad Puppies wanted to start their own award ... for Best Conservative SF, or Best Space Opera, or Best Military SF, or Best Old-Fashioned SF the Way It Used to Be ... whatever it is they are actually looking for ... hey, I don't think anyone would have any objections to that. I certainly wouldn't. More power to them," he added. "But that's not what they are doing here, it seems to me. Instead they seem to want to take the Hugos and turn them into their own awards."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday April 13 2015, @02:25PM

    by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday April 13 2015, @02:25PM (#169721)

    It wasn't a secret group, I have you the name of one of the people that was participating in it. 8^)

    --
    "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:41PM (#169728)

    A group of one person?
    Puhlease. All you are doing is confirming the perception of these sad puppies as nutjobs.

    • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday April 13 2015, @03:05PM

      by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday April 13 2015, @03:05PM (#169740)

      A group only needs one person to lead it.

      I gave you a name, you can look them up yourself to see the kind of crazy they are. I'm not on any side here, I don't vote in the Hugo's nor intend to, but after doing the research it's pretty obvious all the things the "nutjobs" in sad puppies were saying are in fact true. The system can be gamed, and it has been for sometime now.

      --
      "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @03:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @03:36PM (#169762)

        Ah, the old "go google it and prove my point for me" cop-out.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:17PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:17PM (#169788)

          the classic child troll response, do it for me, I'm too much of a lazy sack of shit to do it myself...

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @10:46PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @10:46PM (#170050)

            Hey, I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

            I don't believe him and apparently he's only interested in the self-pleasure of ranting rather than the effort of convincing.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Monday April 13 2015, @03:46PM

        by Oakenshield (4900) on Monday April 13 2015, @03:46PM (#169767)

        I admit I was oblivious to the whole thing until the story first hit ARS. I did some research as well and there was some batshit crazy stuff coming from the people pissed off by the Sad Puppies. It was sad, but it did tend to confirm that what they were accusing was true. I was astonished by the childish vitriol coming from (what I assume) were adults.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 13 2015, @03:54PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday April 13 2015, @03:54PM (#169771)

          I've been an adult for over two decades now, and one thing I've noticed is that so-called adults in this society, regardless of age, are no more mature than most teenagers.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Monday April 13 2015, @04:07PM

            by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday April 13 2015, @04:07PM (#169783)

            It's because the only ones concerned with "maturity" when it comes to arts and entertainment are "children". Saying someone HAS to be mature is what parents use to convince their children they're not behaving properly. Unfortunately some of those children grew up and realized it's a great way to control the behavior of others they don't like. And if you can't use maturity against someone, call them "sexist", "racists", "homophobic", "trasphobic", "misogynistic" (bonus if they're women say they have "internalized misogyny", if they're minorities they've "internalized racism") then clam your side can't be. "Oh, you can't be sexists against a man. Sexism is privilege + power, women don't have privilege or power therefore can't be sexist"

            If someone out wits you in a conversation mock and belittle them, bring your friends or use Anonymous status to make it seem like a legion of people agree with you.

            The mental gymnastic I've read over the last eight months is mind boggling.

            --
            "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:16PM (#169787)

              > And if you can't use maturity against someone, call them "sexist", "racists", "homophobic", "trasphobic", "misogynistic"

              It is interesting that your totally unbiased analysis of events and culpability just happens to line up exactly with your biases.
              No coincidence at all.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:56AM

                by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:56AM (#170861) Journal

                Much more interesting that you mod up your own shoddy comments through multiple accounts (you're not exactly subtle). You're bound to keep it up so the site will figure out a way to stop it (if they haven't already for the next update).

                I guess this might be the end of moderation capabilities for Tor and VPN users, too bad for the ones who managed to behave.

                --
                Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @04:14PM (#169785)

          I am having a hard time understanding how vitriol, no matter how vitriolic, is proof of a secret group that existed beforehand.

          Just because people are angry and pissed off doesn't make them conspirators, especially prior conspirators.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Monday April 13 2015, @04:50PM

            by Oakenshield (4900) on Monday April 13 2015, @04:50PM (#169824)


            I am having a hard time understanding how vitriol, no matter how vitriolic, is proof of a secret group that existed beforehand.

            Just because people are angry and pissed off doesn't make them conspirators, especially prior conspirators.

            The point was that the "Sad Puppies" opponents were openly declaring dedication to vote solely based upon politics. The accusations from "Sad Puppy" supporters were that the process had been in fact previously been hijacked by political factions within the membership. That is, that winners were chosen based upon alignment to the political leanings of the membership instead of merit. The Sad Puppies' slate was (allegedly) chosen without regard to politics.

            • (Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday April 13 2015, @05:14PM

              by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday April 13 2015, @05:14PM (#169834)

              The Sad Puppies' slate was (allegedly) chosen without regard to politics.

              This is supposedly true for this year. The guy that ran SP1 & SP2 admitted he has a conservative leaning. This year the slate was chosen by different people without consideration to politics, some authors that strongly disagreed with SP asked to have their names dropped from the slate and some have turned down nominations. I read one blog by an author who speculates that might be more because other authors are afraid they will be labelled as conservatives for not rejecting the nominations and therefore will be shunned by publishers and attacked by "SJW", I hate that term, in the community... or outside of it. Supposedly one of the defining factors of an "SJW" is they don't care about the communities or fandoms. They get involved in everything for no other reason then to get social justice even if they'd never consume the product themselves, before or after.

              --
              "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @09:26PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @09:26PM (#170004)

                It's that idea that they can/should/will lead you to a better tomorrow or shame you into non-existence for not sharing their vision sort of thing...
                You know, like Hitler...

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @10:57PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @10:57PM (#170060)

                Supposedly one of the defining factors of an "SJW" is they don't care about the communities or fandoms. They get involved in everything for no other reason then to get social justice even if they'd never consume the product themselves, before or after.

                So you disagree with Buzz calling Martin and Scalzi SJWs? [soylentnews.org]

                And what do you call all the people who signed up to be hugo voters for the first time ever in order to vote for the SP slate of 'anti-SJW' titles?

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @10:52PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @10:52PM (#170057)

              > The point was that the "Sad Puppies" opponents were openly declaring dedication to vote solely based upon politics.

              Yes AFTER WITNESSING SP DOING IT FIRST.

              You and vander are both pushing circular logic - "someone else was gaming the system first." But all the 'proof' of that is (a) one guy (Scalzi) lobbying for his own stories and (b) a bunch of people angrily vowing to do to SP what SP did first.

              Time travel is not real, SP doesn't get to blame their prior actions on what people will do in the future.

              • (Score: 2, Informative) by Oakenshield on Tuesday April 14 2015, @02:18PM

                by Oakenshield (4900) on Tuesday April 14 2015, @02:18PM (#170395)

                > The point was that the "Sad Puppies" opponents were openly declaring dedication to vote solely based upon politics. Yes AFTER WITNESSING SP DOING IT FIRST.

                I realize I am debating a AC and it is pointless, but... SP was reactionary. This was not something that was pulled out of their rectums for the Lulz. It was openly stated it was a response to the (at least) appearance of impropriety of selections by political affiliation. It was also stated that SP's slate was agnostic to politics, and based upon (their opinions of) merit. SP opponents openly stated that their goal was to thwart this and vote based upon political lines which is precisely what the SP supporters claimed that they had done in the past. It is difficult to believe that voting by political affiliation did not exist prior to SP, while those accused freely admit to intentions to do so in the future and while past winners look suspiciously like politics were involved.