The Mighty Buzzard writes:
So, last night the SJW types over at the Hugo awards decided they'd rather burn the whole thing to the ground than give out an award based on what the readers like instead of social justice reasons:
The members of the World Science Fiction Society rejected the slate of finalists in five categories, giving No Award in Best Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Editor Short Form, and Editor Long Form. This equals the total number of times that WSFS members have presented No Award in the entire history of the Hugo Awards, most recently in 1977.
Here are a few of the people on the #SadPuppies slate that should be quite surprised to learn that they were denied a chance at an award for being white males when they wake up this morning: Rajnar Vajra, Larry Correia, Annie Bellet, Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Ann Sowards, Megan Gray, Sheila Gilbert, Jennifer Brozek, Cedar Sanderson, and Amanda Green.
takyon: Here are in-depth explanations of the Hugo Awards controversy.
Previously: "Rightwing lobby has 'broken' Hugo awards" Says George R.R. Martin (240 comments)
Are people so very selfish that they actually need awards to validate their pitiful existence? If writing and having written are not intrinsically satisfying enough for these people, maybe they should stop writing, because they are obviously not sufficiently motivated.
You win the award for biggest a-hole. Congrats.
Anyone who does not admire your mutual admiration society is an a-hole. Good to know.
Do you need another merit badge?
Are people so very selfish that they actually need awards to validate their pitiful existence?
... he said while secretly hoping for an 'Insightful' mod.
Nope. Don't fucking care if it's moderated or not. But you're hoping for a Touché mod, aren't you, champ?
Good work, you did it! You're Funny!
You sound upset.
Getting a Hugo drives sales.
Some people disagree with the assessment in the first paragraph.
Please check out http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/ [antipope.org] for an opinion by an affected author.
Too bad Charlie Stross is just John Scalzi with better writing. He's a fool who can't be taken seriously.
Some interesting commentary! A choice tidbit:
I've been seeing a lot of disbelief and anger among the puppies (and gamergaters—there seems to be about a 90% overlap) on twitter in the past 12 hours. They didn't seem to realize that "No Award" was always an option on the Hugos.
"They didn't seem to realize", that covers an awful lot of territory, including Oklahoma. Right-wingers have to come to the realization that they are not a majority, they are not even a large enough of a minority to primary a beauty contest, as Charlie says. So it has to be faced, "No Award" is more popular, better looking, and more skilled at writing science fiction than a Sad Puppy.
You think #SadPuppies was right wing? Get off the crack, ar. It was a group that wanted awards to be based on the merit of the book rather than which fulfilled the most social justice checkboxes. Fuck's sake, even Stephen King has been ignoring the Hugos for years for that very reason.
Definitely right-wing. Almost fascist. Certainly misogynist. Quite possibly deranged. So what is your point? (Sorry for the territory reference, if that is what drew you in.) The Sad Puppies wanted the awards to be based on their idea of merit, which was right-wing. The point is that they are incapable of seeing how ideologically blindfolded they are. This is what happens to art when it is bound by ideology. And it does not really matter whether the ideology is right or left. Take a look at a lot of Soviet or Chinese or Mormon art; it just sucks in a way that the authors of the suckiness cannot see at all. It used to be said that no one knows why the Puppies are Sad. But now we all do. But they still do not. Poor Puppies.
That all sounds remarkably like George Bush's "If you're not with us you're against us".
It is the SJW's who have an ideology, one which the Puppies refused to kneel to.
Ah, Runaway! If only you understood how much we are sympatico! You are like my brother, only my brother who was a trucker and listened just a little too much to Fox News. The Sad Puppies are not with us, they are not with anyone but theirselves. That is kind of the point of all this. It is not Social Justice Warriors that are flooding into the Hugo Awards to dis these right-wing ideologues, it is science fiction fans who are making the call. Now the Puppies may have "refused to kneel" to the judgement of their readers that they suck, but such a refusal is far from noble, in fact it is just the sort of asinine behaviour that got them into this situation in the first place. So there is no black and white, not SJW versus Sad Puppies where we have to be "Faire and Balanced". The Sad Puppies just suck, by any measure of literary quality or competence. So, come back, Runaway. Your fellow Soylentils need you.
What a goddamn idiot. They specifically plotted to load the nominations with reactionary crap written by shitheads, and then they throw a whinefest the moment the majority of actual voters who aren't trying to game the system say "No thanks" to their bullshit.
There is no world in which what you're saying even approaches a fair assessment of the situation. Sorry people who aren't shitheads massively outnumber your actual conspiratorial movement, and you need to brand them as a conspiracy of "SJWs" rather than what it actually is: a majority people who don't want what you're selling(i.e. reactionary identity politics).
what it actually is: a majority people
Just a friendly factual reminder that we're not talking about more than 3.7 billion out of 7.4 billion of the world population, we're talking about a couple thousand extremists on both sides, who paid a modest sum of money for a ballot, both the noms and the election.
Also looking at the voter stats, a huge fraction of the voters are recent political operators. Something I wonder about is it would make a hilarious conspiracy theory story if decades later it came out that the org just wanted to sell more memberships so they intentionally politicized it not expecting 60% of the votes to come from recent joiners with a political axe to grind.
In the grand scheme of things, both sides of the hugo political action are greatly outnumbered by JFK conspiracy theorists, flat earth believers, creationists, klansmen, cult members in general, and all of those are greatly outnumbered by anything even remotely as big as "a majority".
Lets just say I live in a tiny little city in the middle of nowhere that no one has ever heard of, and more people voted for my municipal dogcatcher (city animal control health inspection officer, whatever he's called) than were involved in the hugo election on both sides put together.
I love it, the contortions you go through to pretend "the other side"(i.e. most Hugo voters) are vote brigading, and the people who specifically set out to do that aren't. Buncha Ur Fascist [www.pegc.us] reasoning there. "Destroy our enemies who are secretly weak but using underhanded tacticts to destroy us, which is why underhanded tactics are totally valid in all cases."
I saw it as more of a performance art piece. Its pretty entertaining and interesting from that point of view.
So there's this popularity contest a specific type of art where the performers used to be (and still mostly are) ridiculously non-diverse, so there being no demographic -isms reasons to vote for anyone over anyone else, the winrar of the popularity contest historically was always the artist who made the best art. Now there's enough diversity for massive brigading based solely on artist demographics, which has made the popularity contest pretty much suck for everyone who relied on its secondary almost accidental function of identifying great art, because all its good at is identifying politically correct authors. Its like asking who won a nobel prize and instead being told who passed their FBI clearance. So to do a performance art protest, the noms were stuffed by political operatives to call attention to how crappy the nom process is at selecting good writing and how good it is at selecting "good" left wing demographic members, and the lefties rallied to do their own stuffing, and it ended up being a big joke.
I'm quite sure the nomination rules will be changed so that next year categorically and explicitly straight white males will be forbidden and only black lesbian trans women will be accepted for the 2016 noms and all the SJWs can calm down and relax about the whole thing and the hugos can go back to being a laughingstock.
All this "destroy" and "underhanded" talk sounds like neocons having a freakout over someone burning a flag. The action was just sending a message, a piece of performance art. There is no "totally valid" on any side by any one in a popularity contest now or in the past.
> I saw it as more of a performance art piece. Its pretty entertaining and interesting from that point of view.
Are you now referring to your own whackedelic posts as "performance art?"That's got to be one of the smoothest ego saves ever done on soylent.Wait, does that make you an ego save artist?
Well, you've got to admit - the dogcatcher is far more important than a bunch of stuffed shirts sitting around masturbating each other. I don't follow the Hugos, any more than I watch the various Hollyweird things, with all the "stars" stroking each other's things. Or the music awards, for that matter. The only reason to watch any awards ceremony, is the opportunity to see some cleavage, and that isn't even very exciting when the broads are mostly grandmother age.
You have the Sad Puppies confused with the Rabid Puppies. The Rabid Puppies are openly conservative and reactionary. The Sad Puppies are a slate of diverse authors who are upset about Tor owning the SFWA and demanding that everybody agree with every little thing John Scalzi says to have a chance at winning the Hugo, which should be based on the merit of the work and not whose ass the author kisses. Art suffers under a dictatorship.
Sad puppies, rabid puppies... Anyone else here confused and sadly wondering what happened to science fiction that they loved since childhood?
That is likely the only overlap between this fiasco and gamergate. Gamers never cared about gender or racial politics. They were in it for the medium itself. Don't worry, this will pass as those that are not doing it for love of the medium will burn out and move on to battle in other political arenas soon enough.
Anyone else here confused and sadly wondering what happened to science fiction that they loved since childhood?
In my case, the authors are all dead. I'm the only one I know of who writes like that any more (although my stories may be a tad bit more insane). Personally, I'm sick of dreary stories of dystopian futures. It seems that all of today's authors want to be George Orwell, writing 1984s and Animal Farms.
SF needs new blood. It's not so much that new ideas are needed as that authors should drop wrong ideas. The embarrassing part is that some of these ideas have been kicking around for decades.
Among the worst are ideas on copyright and intellectual property. Unlike a lot of other ideas, that one arouses personal feelings and fears in authors. "How will I earn a living without copyright?" they wail. And so most can't write rationally about that subject. The futures many envision still have ridiculously strong copyright protection. Books are on the way to becoming a quaint relic of the past, entirely supplanted by digital copies, yet in a lot of SF, the paperless office has yet to entirely arrive.
Then there's Faster Than Light travel. The reality we live in is that FTL travel probably is impossible. Every way we've thought up to do it takes absurd amounts of power, or exotic matter, or something else that is utterly impractical or flat impossible. Do the plots really need FTL tech? Mostly, no. Things would take longer, a whole lot longer, and of course some things wouldn't be possible or worth doing. Yet most SF has it. Why? Are they bowing to impatient audiences? Is it so we can act like visiting planets by spaceship is about the same as visiting cities by train? It may be that no FTL travel has kept us safely isolated from hostile aliens, and rather than pining for it, we should be glad it's impossible.
Worse yet is traveling back in time. Forward is fine, nothing wrong with that, we all experience it always. If anything really ruins a story, it's unlimited ability to travel back in time. Any time anyone makes a mistake, just hop back in time and fix it. I suspect that not only is traveling back in time impossible, but that the very thought is a misunderstanding of reality, and we wouldn't even be talking about it if we had a better understanding. Typical time traveling stories restrict the time travel in essentially arbitrary ways, to keep it from being so powerful. Of course in many stories, time travel is the central mechanism that everything revolves around, and the story is an exploration of the ramifications, That's okay, but we have enough of those. It becomes as tiresome as yet another story of what it would be like if the world is flat and you could sail off the edge.
Then there's overbearing space opera, the sort of drama which pushes perfectly valid and often blindingly obvious ideas aside for the sake of making things more dramatic. For instance, in Star Trek, why do they always, always send out an Away Team? Don't they have drones? Remotely operated robots? Probes?
This touches on another problem, which is the desire of people to be the center of action. The amount of personal action needed to accomplish anything is just silly.
I thought that the Sad Puppies was a series of young-adult science-fiction books. Or maybe a graphic novel. I'm vaguely disappointed that it isn't.
> You have the Sad Puppies confused with the Rabid Puppies.
The rabid puppies got all of their nomination choices accepted, the sad puppies were not so successful. When there was a choice between sad noms and rabid noms, the rabids won and the sads lost.
I can see how if you consider yourself just a sad puppy you want to distinguish yourself from the rabids, but there is tons of overlap between the two groups and the rabids got more votes over all, they are clearly leading the movement.
Sad suggested blocks of authors and said pick your favorites to vote for. Rabid laid out fixed blocks and said vote exactly like this. And when it came time to vote? Sad and Rabid both voted for the books they thought best while the SJWs took their flamethrowers to the categories.
Another non-sequitur response. Nothing you wrote contradicts the point that rabids were more succesful at getting their noms than sads were and thus are leading the movement.
The idea of a meritocratic social order is neither left nor right. Both sides can and often do adopt it, and both sides can reject it. Even if we go with the presumption that there is something inherently "right" in it, it still doesn't mean that leftists cannot support it in some or all circumstances, because most people aren't extreme ideologues.
It's funny that you mentioned Fascism because that's a hard-right ideology which strongly favors order over merit, and in fact it rose to prominence as an ideological opposition to 20th century center-left liberalism.
It was a group that wanted awards to be based on the merit of the book rather than which fulfilled the most social justice checkboxes.
That's rather strange, because the books and authors that the Sad Puppies claim have so much merit as to deserve Hugos have attracted neither critical acclaim, nor a strong readership (if their sales numbers are anything to go by), nor lots of compliments by fellow authors, all of which would seem to me to be pretty good indications of merit or lack thereof. And instead of reacting to that with "Maybe the books just aren't that good", they instead went with "There's a conspiracy of Social Justice Warriors to keep these books from winning, even though they are the best books ever!"
The most ridiculous complaint I saw coming from Sad Puppies was that the Hugos were showing a strong preference for books that were seen as more "literary". Well, it's a literary award, what did you think they were supposed to prefer?
It's not like Hugos have never been given to right-wing authors or authors tackling things from a right-wing viewpoint, either.
From the point of view of someone who's generally outside of the whole thing and doesn't really care who wins Hugos, it looks a lot less like conservatives are being persecuted, and a lot more like a very small number of people are claiming conservatives are being persecuted for the purposes of selling bad books.
Merit of the works? Haahahahahahahh! Pull the other one, it's got bells on!
The Sad Puppies nominated mostly shit that got voted down not just because it was hateful, racist, and misogynistic, but because it was BADLY WRITTEN.
The Sad Puppies claim to love David Weber, but didn't get around to nominating any of his bestsellers. Idk if that was because he has female and trans main characters, or because nominating him wouldn't get their tiny little obscure publishing house any free press. Maybe it was a bit of both.
Sad Puppies are interested in the "merits of the book" about as much as #gamergate is interested in "ethics in video game journalism". Thanks for the laughs!
Yes, many of the Sad Puppies wanted to reform the Hugos by making a point; they thought the other side could then be reasoned with. The Rabids knew better. After voting closed Vox Day was openly stating that it had been his intention from the beginning to goad the SJWs themselves into nuking the Hugos by No Awarding since he knew he didn't have the numbers to outright do it himself. Looks like he played them effortlessly. And has no plans to stop hurting them, over and over, year after year, until they get the hint. He has already been wargaming their probable next move of changing the voting rules and how to troll them into further damaging themselves when they do it.
Vox says "SJWs always lie." but I would add that they also aren't too bright either. Of course they make up for it with massive numerical superiority as Progressivism is a creed for losers and there is never a shortage of those.
> Looks like he played them effortlessly.
Seems to me Vox Day is a "heads I win, tails you lose" kinda guy and super bright guys like yourself totally agree.
> He has already been wargaming their probable next move
The NRx interpretation of the collection of facts does seem to correlate better than most interpretations.
What I find interesting is the NRx blogs/podcasts I follow don't have much mention of the hugo situation. It can be recognized as an example of their worldview, but they aren't acknowledging it. Or I'm failing to read it, or in the grand scheme of things its not a big enough deal to get much mention.
An additional NRx interpretation of the facts that you missed yet fits right in, is the old classic that "all organizations that aren't explicitly right wing eventually turn left wing", which certainly fits the hugos. Decades ago, hugo awards really meant something as a mark of quality, its only recently that it converted to a marker of left wing racism and sexism. Now a hugo means the book is at best run of the mill and sometimes mere crap, its like getting a stamp of approval from a Soviet censor. In the old days a hugo meant it was a good story, now it means the author is a member of the correct leftie demographic group and the story is no longer considered.
If a group of people don't want an award to be based purely on the writing, perhaps they should come up with a different awards. If other people think there's value in the idea the awards will start to mean something. What they're doing seems to be trying to take a lot of meaning away from the Hugos.
If one of the bloggers actually use the phrase "Black lives matter" when talking about voting for stories by non-white authors, I have serious doubts about how much value those awards would have in the literary world.
If one of the bloggers actually use the phrase "Black lives matter" ... I have serious doubts about how much value those awards would have in the literary world.
OMG, a blogger said something!! That settles it! When a blogger says something, that is the final word.Game over, man! Game over! What the fuck are we supposed to do now, huh? What are we gonna do?
Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
That's kind of the point the SJWs made during the Hugos. They were upset they didn't get to push their own politics so gave no award rather than give it to something that didn't follow their political ideology.
Rather than give it to something that wasn't worthy of an award, you mean.
Building new awards would be actual work. And it wouldn't serve the Whining Puppies agenda of shitting on better authors, while trying to scam for themselves awards they claim to hate but secretly covet. (Really, this whole thing started when Larry Correia's "brilliant" plan to get himself a Hugo quick and easy went down in flames because he was outclassed by the competition. He's no where near as awful as most of what they nominated this year, but not great either.)
If "not great" leads to the sales he has on his Monster Hunters series, then teach me how to write "not great".
Saved us the trouble of posting a twosided article so we could decide for ourselves.[/sarcasm]
My shat's usually opinion but with neutral, fact-based links. Feel free to ignore them if you like. Or look towards the bottom where takyon linked some extremely vile SJW libel from Wired and called it background.
kek it's not even that bad.
What is the #1 thing you disagree with in the Wired article?
I'll give you three.
1. I disagree with the writer taking the time to point out opponents that are white men and what political affiliations they have had as if it matters, while ignoring the same background information for people they agree with.2. Not citing sources is a "journalistic" practice that removes all integrity.3. Some quotes, GRRM is the most obvious, are taken out of context.
. I disagree with the writer taking the time to point out opponents that are white men and what political affiliations they have had as if it matters, while ignoring the same background information for people they agree with.
Just skimming the article, I see:
Annie Bellet - who withdrew her own nomination because she disagreed with what the puppies were doing - is described as a 34 year old, blonde, fair-skinned woman who was adopted with black and vietnamese sisters raised in a liberal household.
Laura Mixon - described as female, white and quoted as saying,“I stand with people from marginalized groups who seek simply to be seen as fully human. Black lives matter.”
Your other two points require more work to evaluate, given that #1 was false I'm not going to bother.
GamerGate makes a political movement out of threatening with rape any woman who has the temerity to offer an opinion about a videogame.
Fucktards are saying that about me as I take part in that discussion and I take that kinda shit personal. It also willfully pretends the 1/3-1/2 (in my experience) of #GamerGate that are women don't even exist. Wired has been every bit as bad as kotaku since all this began, if not worse.
Also, the pussies moved to wordpress and I just can't respect anything about them after that.
Overall, I found the Wired article to be fairly informative. At least after reading it, many of the comments in this “discussion” are making vastly more sense than they were a few hours ago. Thank you for including this. It seems that this whole thing is more complicated than us vs. them, and my takeaway is protip: if you're going to create a movement that has a good chance to be confused with misogyny or racism, be ever vigilant in keeping a conspicuous distance from others who hold a similar position out of actual misogyny or racism.
Along the lines of what The Mighty Buzzard wrote in the sibling comment, the article writes about gamergate as though it's nothing more than a bunch of misogynerds making rape threats and the MHRM¹ as though it's not a legitimate movement that more men and women are finding themselves agreeing with. Buzzard speaks to #notyourshield, so I'll talk about Mad Max.
(Restricting myself mostly to AVFM² for ease of search.) There were some rumblings of disapproval [avoiceformen.com] before the movie came out. I will admit that I personally did not see Fury Road in the theater because I didn't want to see yet another “waah I'm a woman and can't take responsibility for my own safety” feminist³ piece. (Note: it's the suggestion that being a woman automatically makes one weak and a victim that gets under my skin.)
Now, I was aware of the infamous source [returnofkings.com] of the call to boycott Fury Road because a feminist had been consulted during production, but AVFM claimed there was no boycott [avoiceformen.com]. While I'm not as close to the MHRM as I once was (and may yet be if they get over their hangups about trans women and listen to reason, as they've proven themselves capable in many other matters imo), I believe AVFM has more credibility than Return of Kings. As we all know (and both links point out), the lamestream media went completely bonkers over that Return of Kings post and ran with it as though it were representative of the MHRM.
(Now granted, one can find odd rationalizations [avoiceformen.com] for the RoK piece that simultaneously attempt to apologize for it and distance themselves from it.)
So, what kind of review does a website I would like to believe is in a position to speak for the MHRM post? See for yourself. [avoiceformen.com]
So as I was watching this film I came to two conclusions. First Aaron Clarey at Return of Kings (once again we note, Clarey is not an MRA and Return of Kings is a noted anti-MRA site–eds) didn’t watch the film before he blasted it. Secondly, this is NOT a feminist film.
I have nitpicks with various parts of the article, but here you have it. Mad Max: Fury Road is not a feminist piece, nor was the MHRM boycotting it en masse as the Wired article implies.
Hell, to be absolutely honest, if I hadn't known that Eve Ensler was involved, I would have seriously thought that they had hired an Amazon on as a consultant! As it stands, I'm not certain exactly what part was supposed to be influenced by her. Or hell, here's a thought. Maybe they did hire an Amazon on as a consultant, knew they wanted to write a story with many Amazon themes⁴, and only very publicly involved Eve Ensler as a human shield against social justice bullies and 3rd wave feminism misinterpreting the film's sex slave characters. So, that must be the answer key: Eve Ensler #isyourshield!
(Disclaimer: Reactions to Fury Road seem quite diverse. I submit a third viewpoint [christianitytoday.com] on Fury Road for the reader's consideration.)
¹ Men's human rights movement² A Voice for Men³ Once again, I use the term feminist carelessly. Perhaps I should adopt Naomi Wolf's term “victim feminism [solidarity-us.org]” despite her being at the forefront of 3rd wave feminism. This requires more research.⁴ As AVFM insinuates, Amazon tribes don't go around killing men for practical reasons (and not mostly for practical reasons, either).
If you want the other side go to the green site. Every other viewpoint is being modded down over there, an indicator for me that Buzzard's take is the correct one.
> Every other viewpoint is being modded down over there,
After first being modded up, so they are back to where they started.There are still enough of them that are modded up, like these:
The Sad Puppies won. (Score:5, Insightful) [slashdot.org]This has to be the best quote .. (Score:3) [slashdot.org]Re:WIRED has it right (Score:4, Insightful) [slashdot.org]
If they want space opera awards, let them set up space opera awards. If they want drama, let them award top drama writer awards.
All of my life, I've been reading science fiction. There have been times when I was surprised that a writer was female, or Latino, or whatever. More than fifty years ago, at least one author wrote about gay heros who rejected the girl for each other - and he remained a leader in the science fiction field. (Heinlein, if you didn't know.) Science Fiction writers have been writing about PEOPLE for as long as science fiction has existed. But, the story always revolves around science, or it's not science fiction.
We've had similar discussions here, and on /. in the past.
I'm pretty open minded, but if it has no science in it, then it's not science fiction. People who want to write, people who want to read "something else" can just run along and organize their own award system. They aren't welcome in my universe.
Or, stated another way - if you want gay marriage, you can have gay marriage. Just don't expect me to have any thing to do with your gay marriage. I won't say "fuck the SJW's" because they'd like it to much. Let them run along and fuck each other though.
> I'm pretty open minded,
And the award for the most humorous post of the weekend goes to Runaway!
And, your post indicates that you don't understand the Runaway. You've drawn conclusions about me that are unwarranted, simply because I disagree with your own political leanings.
> And, your post indicates that you don't understand the Runaway. You've drawn conclusions about me that are unwarranted,
I know what you write here.
If your writing has not been an accurate representation of who you are, then you are encouraged to stop lying to us.
And, your post indicates that you don't understand the Runaway
Thus we are faced with a conundrum! Either the Runaway does not understand hisself, (entirely possible, from his postings here), or everyone else who sees the irony does not actually understand the Runaway. I, reluctantly, am going for the first position. Sorry, Runaway! But cognitive dissonance has its price. We cannot both defend Republicans and at the same time claim not to be one. Which side are you on? GW Bush want's to know, you know.
> We cannot both defend Republicans and at the same time claim not to be one
You are either with us or against us!
No I am not! Or maybe both! Why does American politics have to be so complicated? Things are simpler in Greece, even ancient Greece.
Dude, of course one can defend something one's not a part of. The fuck is wrong with you? That kind of thinking is pretty scarily similar to people burning the guy who told them to calm down and think alongside the witch. I expect (and hope) you didn't quite mean it like that, but such lines scare the crap out of me...
So, go back and read it all again. It has obviously gone over your head the first time.
Ah, denial is so, so comforting. Like a warm, fuzzy blanket you can snuggle in.
You know — crazy people never think they are crazy, its always everybody else that is off-base.
You know it so well!
Nah, denial burns like hot brass down the shirt. You can pretend it's not there and push through it but wow does it hurt.
I'm pretty open minded, but if it has no science in it, then it's not science fiction.
I'm pretty open minded, but if it has no science in it, then it's not science fiction.
As it should be.
Of course, that argument starts to fall apart a bit when you realise the one of folks worried about the standing of "hard SF" nominated a collection of their own tweets for a Hugo...
> one of folks worried about the standing of "hard SF" nominated a collection of their own tweets for a Hugo...
Come on, you gotta give us more than that. Do you know how useless it is to google for the word "tweets?"No chance in hell of figuring out who or what you are talking about.
Why does person A doing something dumb and self serving in relation to a medium invalidate the definition of the medium supplied by person B?
Your post was almost making a decent claim about your level headed and open minded position. However you dropped it at the end, some topics you don't want to be involved with.
Your point would have succeeded if you'd said something like: "if they want gay marriage they can have gay marriage, but there better be some interesting science stuff too!" (Even though there are no particular rules...). But no, you said keep that stuff away from me. I think the whole reaction of the puppies is probably more to do with personal discomfort regarding a new cultural trend.
Its not a conspiracy when the whole process is voted on by invested people (members), just a trend in what people think makes a good story worth awarding. Also, the puppies created the whole scenario by gaming the system (no one likes a cheater), so don't blame the lack if awards on anyone else.
Uhhhh - wait a second. The SJW's WEREN'T trying to game the system? That is what the whole story is about. Two conflicting points of view, each trying to influence the outcome of the awards - and ultimately, the voters voted "none of the above".
We really need a similar vote in American politics.
Those SJW feminazi multiculti libtards posted this story late sunday night on purpose. They knew this time slot has least number of readers on soylent. It was deliberately delayed so it wouldn't get the proper recognition that it deserves!
We all know the truth is that thousands of SJWs were willing to spend $40 each just to keep honest, pure, good, self-relient story telling down because they care more about being divisive than they do about science fiction. The hugos have always been controlled by secret cabals, but when right-thinking white men take a public stand for liberty -- LIBERTY! -- no, no, no that can't be permitted. Our official cabal isn't politically correct enough for all those dumb, stupid, SJWs!!!!
Help help, I'm being repressed!
Is this a Russian conspiracy, no it's just idiocyIs this a Chinese burnI gotta dinosaur for a representativeIt's got a small brain and refuses to learn
I got, mercury poisoningIt's fatal and it don't get betterI got, mercury poisoningI'm the best kept secret in the west
- Graham Parker
There's no conspiracy, just a bunch of entryist morons attempting to shovel their propaganda out as much as possible.
> There's no conspiracy, just a bunch of entryist morons
Fucking Saul Alinsky!You know he's behind it all.Him and Obama!
I haven't paid a ton of attention to this, but my basic understanding is that a group favoring shoot-em up space westerns is pissed because that genre has been done, and done again, and people are interested in something else.
I thought one thing to do to understand their beef, would be to get some female written sci-fi, and so at some point earlier this year I looked up a list of female sci-fi authors, found one in audiobook format with a reader I liked, and you know what? It was a total shoot 'em up and way more sexy than any sci-fi I'd read before either. Some neat little bio/compsci-fi hooks too. I really enjoyed it. Maybe it would have made Sad Puppies' list, but the following review would tend to suggest to me otherwise:
Lock up your menJustina Robson revels in Tricia Sullivan's Maul, the story of a plague-ridden future where women rule the world***Maul deals with plagues: biological plagues, political ideology, sex and shopping. ...***Later Sullivan reveals that this world, the book's "reality", is a virtual simulation being run inside a human being from some alternative reality. The unfortunate man - the ultra-Y-chromosome, almost-autistic Meniscus - is actually a farm for the development of biological weapons. The Mall is his retreat: an inner TV that absorbs him so deeply he becomes impervious to his own suffering. It's literally soap opera as anaesthetic. Only later, when the terrorbugs in Meniscus integrate with the Mall system, does he realise that what happens to the girls in the Mall will determine whether or not he dies or lives to bring a new kind of future to humanity.***Meniscus is fortunate in one respect: not being dead. Most male humans have been wiped out by a chromosome-specific virus, a Y-plague, and the world is run by women. Perfect territory for some post-feminist criticism? You bet it is. While Sun and Suk Hee try to survive a lethal dispute over an eyeshadow, Dr Madeline Baldino, the scientist in charge of Meniscus, is plotting to get herself pregnant by a real man. She already has a clone daughter called Bonus - another name that speaks volumes about the relationship - but it's real children that count in this future, and for them you need money, or power, or both.The women who run this world are most definitely not the utopian feministas of earlier decades of SF. They have a very present-day administrative verve, and pursue the ancient female preoccupations of shopping and chocolate as they struggle with careers and children. The surviving men, meanwhile, have assented to be locked up safely in castles from where they are periodically paraded for sales purposes, like a neverending series of Fame Academy .
Lock up your menJustina Robson revels in Tricia Sullivan's Maul, the story of a plague-ridden future where women rule the world
Maul deals with plagues: biological plagues, political ideology, sex and shopping. ...
Later Sullivan reveals that this world, the book's "reality", is a virtual simulation being run inside a human being from some alternative reality. The unfortunate man - the ultra-Y-chromosome, almost-autistic Meniscus - is actually a farm for the development of biological weapons. The Mall is his retreat: an inner TV that absorbs him so deeply he becomes impervious to his own suffering. It's literally soap opera as anaesthetic. Only later, when the terrorbugs in Meniscus integrate with the Mall system, does he realise that what happens to the girls in the Mall will determine whether or not he dies or lives to bring a new kind of future to humanity.
Meniscus is fortunate in one respect: not being dead. Most male humans have been wiped out by a chromosome-specific virus, a Y-plague, and the world is run by women. Perfect territory for some post-feminist criticism? You bet it is. While Sun and Suk Hee try to survive a lethal dispute over an eyeshadow, Dr Madeline Baldino, the scientist in charge of Meniscus, is plotting to get herself pregnant by a real man. She already has a clone daughter called Bonus - another name that speaks volumes about the relationship - but it's real children that count in this future, and for them you need money, or power, or both.
The women who run this world are most definitely not the utopian feministas of earlier decades of SF. They have a very present-day administrative verve, and pursue the ancient female preoccupations of shopping and chocolate as they struggle with careers and children. The surviving men, meanwhile, have assented to be locked up safely in castles from where they are periodically paraded for sales purposes, like a neverending series of Fame Academy .
Maybe it would have made Sad Puppies' list, but the following review would tend to suggest to me otherwise
Check their list. It had more diversity than any Hugos lineup in history.
> Check their list. It had more diversity than any Hugos lineup in history.
And yet it lost harder than any other list of politically motivated nominations in the history of the award.How can that be?You hit all the checkboxes on the SJW approval list and you lost big.Obviously that's proof that diversity is more important than story telling.
Hey Mighty Butthurt, come and join our Hugo Truthers group, we will expose the vote for what it was - an inside job!
How can that be?You hit all the checkboxes on the SJW approval list and you lost big.
Because while SJW claims to be about all women and minorities, women and minorities who write the wrong things or are in the wrong crowd don't count as real or these purposes. The Sad Puppies list matches what SJWs claim to approve of, but not what they actually approve of.
> The Sad Puppies list matches what SJWs claim to approve of,
Err, nope. The puppies list matches what the puppies imagine SJWs approve of. You guys have a really big problem dealing with reality outside your bubble, its so thick that looking through it really distorts your perceptions. Either that, or you just love you some strawmen.
Yes, it had a few tokens, and 6 nominations for John C. Wright, white male Catholic hate-spewer. Really, if that is what you call diversity, you're an idiot.
white male Catholic hate-spewer
I don't see why that should matter. I don't care if someone is an unreconstructed Nazi, if they write good work I'll read it. OSC is a homophobic bigot but it never bleeds into his work, which I rather enjoy. I don't have to hate someone's work just because I find their political identity abhorrent.
But I'm a left-wing anti-feminist, so I'm used to being hated by everyone. Maybe I'm just projecting my own hopeful tolerance into the world in hopes it'll come back to me as fair treatment.
I feel like you completely sidestepped wedge's point just so you could humblebrag.
OSC is a homophobic bigot but it never bleeds into his work, which I rather enjoy.
Um, if I might, perhaps, you could read a bit more closely? Even "Ender's Game" is full of teenage Mormon homophobia. You just have to read. Why, oh why, is reading comprehension such an issue here on SoylentNews, where words are made of people? Some of those people are bigots, racists, and homophobes. You really need to learn to read them. And Donald Trump.
The enemy is literally called "buggers!"
Scott also makes the muslim boy kiss Ender on the cheek, and then be embarrassed by it. Twofer!
But it comes across as homophobic in the same way as the movie 300 - unintentionally super gay. The boys are always naked, sometimes even sleeping (naked) in the same bed together. Given that Card is kind of virulent in his real-life homophobia, I'm thinking the guy is pulling a republican-senator - trying to deal with a conflict between his internal feelings and the norms of his religious community.
OSC is a homophobic bigot but it never bleeds into his work
The Homecoming Saga has a main character who is gay and whose character arc basically involves being 'cured' of homosexuality and finding fulfilment being married to a woman. That wouldn't be my main criticism of him though: I've read most of his work and he constantly repeats the same stories from The Book of Mormon, in slightly different settings and they get quite tedious after a while.
Numbers don't lie, my cowardly friend. Deal with it.
The first 5 prose categories (Best Novel, Best Novella, Best Novelette, Best Short Story and Best Related Work) turn up the following numbers for 2014: 8.5% non-White Male (and that's counting Larry Correia as non-White!), 28.6% White Female, 57.1% White Male and 5.7 % non-White female. In 2015, with most of these categories dominated by the Puppies: non-White male: 11.5%, White Female: 11.5%, White Male: 76.9%
So fuck off. The puppies started with Brad Torgersen's whine that previous awards were 'affirmative action', and proceeded to prove their hatred for diversity by putting overwhelmingly white males on the ballot, with a few tokens as human shields. As you say, the numbers don't lie: you do.
And all this could have been overlooked, if they hadn't:
...way more sexy than any sci-fi I'd read before either.
After seeing so many women reading James Patterson, I read one of his books to see what it was all about, and wasn't very impressed with the writing, but I did figure out why he's so popular.
Women like pornographic murder mysteries, and don't really care if they're well-written or not.
The book I referenced above was definitely pornographic -- in the opening scene one of the main female characters is using a gun as a dildo. Honestly, it was the most sexually explicit book I've read or listened to.
There are a bunch of people at the hugo award that voted for no award because they dislike that someone recommended books?
That’s kind of like the Koch brothers recommending Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton for president, and all the dems voted for no one because they dislike the Koch brothers.
They voted "no award" because the available choices sucked.
No, they organized to vote No Award because their ideological picks didn't make it onto the ballot in those categories. That's not opinion or guesswork. It was done in the open for a nice change.
Do you have any evidence for your assertion? Was there a poll of the 5000+ voters that determined why each one voted the way they did? Or are you ascribing motives because you didn't like the results and have your own agenda to push?
I watched it play out, yes. I could likely find dozens of citations pretty quickly but I'm about two minutes from heading out fishing for the morning. Here's one [deirdre.net] that took me about ten seconds to find before I go though.
And your belief that someone pleading for action actually caused that action is completely unproven and specious, but it does confirm your persecution fantasy so it must be true.
By that same logic, when Vox Day asked the gamergaters to pile in and manipulate the votes, that's what happened too.
I wish we could vote NO AWARD for the US presidential elections. 2016 will be entertaining, like a political Jerry Sprunger, but I'd rather not suffer the consequences of that election. Anyone who is actually electable and good for the country could not get though the nominations and then survive the campaign..... Sounds like a Douglas Adams quote.
Voting drama aside, is there a list of the better writing/watching of 2015?
Nebula Awards. Harder to fuck with the nomination process because just writers get to vote.
How has the Nebula awards matched up with the Hugo awards? That might shed some light as to wtf is going on.
An emphatic "No". The whole point of the drama was how much the authors politically correct, or incorrect, demographics should play into defining "better", so until that's defined its not possible to answer the question. The whole point of the voting drama was watching the roughly 100% and roughly 0% partisans fight it out.
I think the time of such "awards" are over. We're all networked now, it's not like decades ago when sci-fi / fantasy readers were contained in small pockets of society that never encountered each other, thus needing some badge of validation that it was worth reading. With so many avid readers posting reviews on blogs, it's just a matter of finding the right circles to suit your tastes.
We're all networked now, it's not like decades ago when sci-fi / fantasy readers were contained in small pockets of society that never encountered each other
I beg to differ. From Yesterday's Tomorrows:"Not only was this issue the first edition of any science fiction magazine, it was the beginning of the genre’s fandom as well. His letters to the editor column was a precursor to today’s internet chat rooms, as the writer’s address was printed with the letter, and fans started collaborating by mail. It’s said that Asimov, Bradbury, and others got together by mail as teenagers because of the magazine’s letters section and were probably encouraged to write stories."
Sci-fi fans have always been ahead of the curve. The book's on my website for free, BTW. That was from the introduction to an essay by Hugo Gernsback that I think came from the first issue of Amazing.
Seriously, how did we let this summary get published as it is? It's complete and utter lies.
Here's what actually happened: A bunch of regressives calling themselves "Sad Puppies" (and a second, mostly-identical group, "Rabid Puppies") decided to rig the nomination process. They've been trying for a few years now, but they've had their first actual successes this year (I suspect the growth of the "GamerGate" and MRA movements might have helped feed them, but that's pure speculation on my part). They were completely up-front about this, at least while they looked like they might succeed. Apparently their story's changed now that they've failed.
Anyways, according to them, there's a liberal conspiracy that has been rigging the system for decades now, making sure that books with "progressive messages" fill the ballot. This is fairly easily disproved just by looking at previous nominations, plus how easily the "Sad Puppies" managed to dominate the ballots this year. But the indisputable fact is that the nominations this year, in several categories, were dominated by the works these groups chose, due to their specific efforts.
I will note that several authors, whose works were part of the *-Puppies slates, withdrew their works from nomination in protest. So even among the people writing "non-SJW stories", whatever that means, there are those who don't want to be associated with this movement, or who at least protest the whole deliberate breaking of the nomination system.
As for the actual voting, for those who don't know, the Hugo awards are voted on by fans attending the World Science Fiction Convention. So it's a voting population of several thousand - not quite "every science fiction fan", but it's not an elite group, either. And votes may be cast for "no award". In the categories where the *only* options were those nominated by the Sad Puppies group, the fans voted overwhelmingly for no award.
That's what the summary should have been. But no, instead we got this self-serving, contradictory pile of garbage. Seriously, you say "denied an award for being white males" and then list MOSTLY WOMEN.
When I visited the Other Site earlier today, I saw similar coverage of this story. I was incredibly disappointed, and my hope was that Soylent would prove itself better, having something that was accurate, or at least not blatantly wrong. Instead, I see... this. And I am extremely disappointed to see this.
Shame on you, cmn32480, for approving this, and double the shame on Mighty Buzzard for writing it. Even if you agree with the Puppies politically, blatant propaganda like this does not belong here. We don't need to be perfectly neutral - indeed, on many subjects we *should* not be neutral - but we should be better than to get things factually wrong to spin the story in favor of one side.
and my hope was that Soylent would prove itself better, having something that was accurate, or at least not blatantly wrong. Instead, I see... this. And I am extremely disappointed to see this.
Well, you know, while I agree with the general sentiment, I cannot agree with the idea that this story should not have been accepted. Just look at the reception! Yes, the usual prepubescents at the denouement, but we judge sites not by the color of their Fine Articles, but by the character of their Comments. (Wow, channeling MLKJr there!). So I think that the Mighty Buzz has overstepped himself. But we have gone round several times, and I retain an absolute faith in his humanity and truly believe that one day he will become the mightiest SJW of all, and bring balance to the Force. And it is good to bring this stuff out into the open, so we know which sci-fi righters not to read. (intentional typo, btw.)
> So I think that the Mighty Buzz has overstepped himself.
Overstepped in a completely predictable way. At least the Mighty Butthurt is consistent.He does have the strength of his convictions after all and that's the most important thing!
I could be wrong, but I think MBuzz is a "she".
But no, instead we got this self-serving, contradictory pile of garbage. Seriously, you say "denied an award for being white males" and then list MOSTLY WOMEN.
That's the point. The Sad Puppies are being accused of being misogynist white males who created a slate full of white males. And this accusation isn't true, and that list shows it. That's not factually wrong, except on the part of the Sad Puppies' detractors who are saying that in the first place.
> The Sad Puppies are being accused of being misogynist white males who created a slate full of white males.
That is an incorrect reading of the situation. If you believe that's the case then no wonder you are confused. The puppies are accused of creating a slate full of stories that confirm their ideology. You don't have to be a white male to buy into the puppies ideology, you just have to say things that fit the puppies worldview. Hell, you don't even have to mean for your words to be taken that way, as some if the authors nominated by the pupples pulled their stories rather than be associated with the group.
That is an incorrect reading of the situation.
Two minutes of Goggling "sad puppies" with "white males" indicates otherwise.
> Two minutes of Goggling "sad puppies" with "white males" indicates otherwise.
Two more minutes indicates wise.
Seriously, anyone who says "google it" is just admitting their error while trying to protect their ego.
That you are clearly over 30 years old and yet still use that kind of grade-school logic reflects very poorly on you. Even drunk I know not to do that.
Oh shut the fuck up you drunk bastard..
These are all from the first page of Google results:
Actually, most of the hits you get for that search aren't making accusations at all, because they're defending the Sad Puppies from the obviously false accusation. But here's a couple:
"The status quo of straight white cis-male domination is ending. We are winning, and they know it. They’re salting the earth in their retreat, but we’re winning. "
"Despite some exciting gains (all of the winners of the 2014 Nebula awards were women and people of color), one group of people is attempting to make sure that the Hugo Awards (sci-fi’s most prestigious honor) go exclusively to white heterosexual men."
And let's not forget the Entertainment WEeekly article, originally titled "Hugo Award nominations fall victim to misogynistic, racist voting campaign", and the retraction: ( http://www.ew.com/article/2015/04/06/hugo-award-nominations-sad-puppies [ew.com] )
"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. "
Correction, those aren't all from the first page, I left in that first line by mistake.
"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
Hello, McFly? That story is over four months old. Once upon a time your accusation held true for a some loud simpletons, but if an official acknowledgment by the most widely read entertainment magazine isn't enough to say that the problem the mainstream has with the sad puppies is not that they "created a slate full of white males" then what would it take to convince you otherwise? For fucks sake the list of authors is a simple basic fact, there can be no argument about it.
All you are doing is hiding behind a strawman in order to avoid acknowledging the real criticism of the puppies.
Accused by who?
My complaints about the Sad Puppies are threefold. First, they are attempting to subvert a democratically-chosen award. That is my personal #1 issue with them. Second, they're opposing any sort of progressive portrayals in science fiction - and what's the point of science fiction if all it can do is reinforce current social mores? Third, they pulled their choices from a far smaller group of writers - they tried to nominate some authors a total of six times, for various works. Even if you accept that too much modern fiction prioritizes social commentary over entertainment, they would be wrong simply because they're picking and choosing a select group of authors that they approve of, and exclude all others. They did not offer a wide enough choice even within their declared genre of "fun fiction".
Nobody with a modicum of intelligence (as with any group with more than two members, there are idiots) is accusing them of creating a slate full of white males. They are accused of creating a slate that does nothing to offend white males. While not quite as blatantly discriminatory, it still shows a very self-centric worldview - those who have a surplus of social power, using that power to try to retain that power.
And in any case, the summary as written was factually wrong. "Here are the people who were denied a chance at an award for being white males: [list of people that is not exclusively white males]". That isn't even *potentially* correct - it is false in every possible universe because it is self-contradictory.
a democratically-chosen award
those who have a surplus of social power, using that power to try to retain that power.
Those that have the most social power win. Yeah, that is what democracy is. You don't see democracies suddenly voting to become dictatorships now do you? So what is the problem?
> You don't see democracies suddenly voting to become dictatorships now do you?
Yeah, that's never happened.
Venezuela - Hugo ChavezPhilippines - Ferdinand MarcosGermany - Adolf HitlerBelarus - Alexander LukashenkoRussia - Vladimir PutinZimbabwe - Robert Mugabeetc
First, they are attempting to subvert a democratically-chosen award.
Yea, they didn't like what was happening and OMG! they decided to organize, propose better candidates and exhort new people to get involved in the process. Enemies of the People! Heretics! Burn em now!
Second, they're opposing any sort of progressive portrayals in science fiction...
Uh huh. One word rebuttal. Heinlein. All puppies revere him and he wrote stuff that was plenty progressive, especially for his day. Of course he also wrote stuff that totally enrages modern political progressives too.
No, the puppies hate bad science fiction that is more concerned with pushing a single narrow political narrative than in science fiction or even fiction in general. They hold that there is a reason the genre is in trouble, that readership is down. Too many of the works that get PR and awards, the stuff that would draw in new readers, is unreadable dreck. The prime movers in the Puppies are all authors, successful ones in their own right but concerned about the long term survival of their industry.
They are accused of creating a slate that does nothing to offend white males.
Can you be more wrong? For all their talk about 'diversity' most SJWs are themselves white males. They keep a few non-white or non-cis males around as decorations and pets but the leaders. the ones with the real power, are just about always cis white males... beta tending to omega male perhaps but still male. So obviously it isn't about whiteness or males, again since you do concede that candidates promoted by the Puppies were diverse in all of the ways SJWs say they want.
But we know the reality. They aren't speaking English, they use NewSpeak. In the NewSpeak diversity is everybody of every skin color, gender identity, etc. coming together and thinking exactly the same Party approved thoughts. For there is one diversity that is forbidden, none may disagree with The Party; to even speak of diversity of thought is crimethink.
> Yea, they didn't like what was happening and OMG! they decided to organize, propose better candidates and exhort new people to get involved in the process.
And they lost utterly, a total and complete repudiation.You can't have it both ways - if you want to argue that they did nothing wrong, just following the rules, then you must also accept the outcome since everybody just followed the rules.
> One word rebuttal. Heinlein. All puppies revere him and he wrote stuff that was plenty progressive, especially for his day.
Yes, for his day. Not any more. It's bland, kooky libertarianism with an average level of kink. When your shinning example of "progressive" is something 30+ years old, you aren't progressive.
> For all their talk about 'diversity' most SJWs are themselves white males.
And that's all a non-sequitur. I am interested to find out if you believe what you wrote is actually relevant, or you just thought it would be persuasive because you tossed in a ton of rhetoric.
I was not a fan of a confusing opinion piece (just the original submission's text and the blog post alone are not very informative), and I had forgotten the details of the controversy, so I added a Wired link at the bottom that cmn32480 sent me, the Wikipedia article, and the previous story. I read the entire Wired link to get a grasp on what was going on. For example, I wasn't clear on how the nomination process had been rigged or who these "SJW types" (the voters) were.
In retrospect maybe I should have written two extra sentences saying "Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, two movements intended to stack the Hugo Award nominations in favor of popular/low-brow, or white-authored science fiction, depending on who you ask, have failed. Thousands of World Science Fiction Convention attendees chose to give 'No Award' in 5 categories rather than pick from the 'stacked' nominees."
If we publish a user's "propaganda" opinion piece, the user's view will be challenged in the comments. In that sense it is not much of a disappointment, except the obviousness of this bait. I'm not sure if any other editor was going to add more information to the summary, but 5 hours before the story ran, it looked just like the Original Submission. The Hugo Awards link does not explain the controversy at all. So it could have been worse.
I checked the Slashdot summary and while it may be "slanted", it's more concise and explanatory than TMB's. timothy added the same Wired link. Not sure how the other site's summary is incredibly disappointing; it looks better.
TMB's list of diverse losers that were on the Sad Puppies slate is at least a debatable counterpoint to accusations that the movements are misogynist/MRAs/anti-SJW/whatever. The argument that popular fiction is being snubbed may be true. Personally, I don't see why a "social justice" work can't be considered the "best" work in a category - e.g. The Water That Falls on You From Nowhere mentioned in the Wired article. Is it "bad" writing, do the movement(s) dislike the homosexual/minority elements, or do they simply believe using such elements gives an inflated chance of winning?
Here's an idea for the Hugos. They should vote on the current year's winners and next year's nominations during the same convention. It would lag everything by a year but could fix the "problem".
> Here's an idea for the Hugos. They should vote on the current year's winners and next year's nominations during the same convention.
They've already fixed the problem, it's called "E Pluribus Hugo" - you get a single divisible vote which means you can spend the entire vote on one entry, or divide it up among multiple entries. So if you want to nominate book A and book B each gets half a vote. That makes it much harder to pack the list of nominations, while still letting people vote for more than one work if they really want to nominate more than one.
The problem is that, due to hugo constitutional rules, it won't go into effect until year after next, so the 2016 awards will still be subject to the same exploit. Whether the puppies will still give enough of a shit to shit on the nominations remains to be seen — it will be a presidential election year so much less outside agitators like Breitbart plus the emotional impact of being so thoroughly repudiated by the general electorate this time may cause the group to lose momentum.
With so much at stake, more people than ever forked over membership dues (at least $40) in time to be allowed to vote for the 2015 Hugos. Before voting closed on June 31, 5,950 people cast ballots (a whopping 65 percent more than had ever voted before).
I don't see momentum that depends on paid dues being sustained for very long.
They've already fixed the problem, it's called "E Pluribus Hugo" - you get a single divisible vote which means you can spend the entire vote on one entry, or divide it up among multiple entries. So if you want to nominate book A and book B each gets half a vote. That makes it much harder to pack the list of nominations, while still letting people vote for more than one work if they really want to nominate more than one.
You say vote, but it's a change to the nominating process,not the voting one. This is an important distinction because it means there is no damage control for bloc voting -- such as what was supposedly used to block awards in so many categories this year -- still. All this does is make nomination control require more people -- interesting because, since nominations have a fee attached, the people in charge of the rules have financial motivation to ride the wave of drama to enact these changes.
It also seems like you could still bloc nominate a single entry, then also vote in lockstep, and still control the process. The only (arguable) improvement is that, again, it's more expensive. That doesn't seem like "fixed" to me, even assuming it passes.
(I haven't followed this debacle closely and may have missed something when researching what "E Pluribus Hugo" is, so corrections or clarifications are welcome.)
In retrospect maybe I should have written two extra sentences saying "Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, two movements intended to stack the Hugo Award nominations in favor of popular/low-brow, or white-authored science fiction, depending on who you ask, have failed.
Man, I thought Slashdot editors were bad doing yellow journalism. Holy crap.
The submission doesn't explain what those movements are, and that sentence is entirely accurate.
There are two co-existing movements, with a range of goals.They stacked the nominations.There are a range of opinions on what the movements want to achieve.
Torgerson says his books are blue-collar speculative fiction. The Hugos, they say, are snobby and exclusionary, and too often ignore books that are merely popular, by conservative writers...A beat, and then he added: “I don’t consider all black people to be half-savages. I mean, some people are. Here in Europe, for example, we have actual proper Africans, not African-Americans. This leads to problems, like people shitting on top of the closed toilets. They don’t know how to use indoor plumbing, okay? This is not civilized behavior.”
Torgerson says his books are blue-collar speculative fiction. The Hugos, they say, are snobby and exclusionary, and too often ignore books that are merely popular, by conservative writers...
A beat, and then he added: “I don’t consider all black people to be half-savages. I mean, some people are. Here in Europe, for example, we have actual proper Africans, not African-Americans. This leads to problems, like people shitting on top of the closed toilets. They don’t know how to use indoor plumbing, okay? This is not civilized behavior.”
The second part is from Theodore Beale
The summary has references. You have none.
Are you talking about the links I added? The original submission [soylentnews.org] only links to the urban dictionary definition of "SJW" and a thehugoawards.org blog post listing the winners. Nothing about "SJW types over at the Hugo awards" burning the whole thing down.
If you are talking about the Wired, Wikipedia, and previous story link, I added all three.
So, let me get this straight...the Mad Dogs bragged about the fact that they stuffed the ballot to put forward a slate of works that wouldn't have made it otherwise, and now they're furious that nobody fell for it and voted for subpar stuff? And the joker leading the march is proud to be an obnoxious homophobe and racist and misogynist, with many of his minions merrily mimicking his misanthropy?
And we're supposed to feel sorry for these outright losers (in every sense of the word)...because...why, exactly...?
And the joker leading the march is proud to be an obnoxious homophobe and racist and misogynist, with many of his minions merrily mimicking his misanthropy?
Wait, Trump is running for the Hugo Awards nomination now?
You are (probably deliberately) conflating two different groups that have the word "puppies" in their name. one being the misogynist and the other being most of the movement.
Close enough for rock-n-roll.
Since it serves your SJW purpose.
> Since it serves your SJW purpose.
That kinda sounds like a christian metal band "Serve Your SJW Purpose" — Get ready to rock with Jesus toniiiiight!!!!
Anytime I see the term SJW used, I know I can stop reading right there. I won't miss anything useful.
Related: Same rule applies to any site that has an ad about "one weird trick".
Ignore them at your own risk. It was the SocJus crowd that ruined the Occupy movement by instituting a "progressive stack". Meaning that if you wanted to speak, you got in a line, then the line was sorted according to "oppression", meaning white men go to the back of the line and female minorities go to the front. If that's not racist and sexist as hell, I don't know what is. Microsoft also used the SJWs as useful idiots, manufacturing the "STEM crisis" and exacerbated things by accusing every company of being misogynists because their non-sexst hiring reflects the available worker pool and more men work in STEM than women. That manipulative SJW shit was and is still all over the news -- Except the propaganda doesn't come out and say "SJW", the opposition to said propaganda does. So, if you're just dismissing anything with SJW in the body you're ignoring those that call propagandists and useful idiots on their bullshit.
The important thing to note is that SJWs is a play on "Keyboard Warriors" -- the term describes those who agitate for social justice causes but don't actually support social justice, they just want attention. The poeople that oppose SJWs aren't racist misogynists they're just calling ideological zealots on their idiocy, as in TFA. Implementing a progressive stack at a fucking protest? Well that's what's going on at the Hugo Awards now. If you keep dismissing this shit then next up will be SJW indoctrination in your schools: Please Report to Your Resident Assistant to Discuss Your Sexual Identity–It’s Mandatory! [thefire.org] (yes, this really happened at the University of Delaware). Enjoy your mandatory sensitivity training, because SJWs are real.
The interesting thing to me is how marketing companies are using the equivalent of whiney Tumblr feminists to smear competition and promote products. You may know SJWs by another name: Authoritarians using Orwellian Doublespeak, another term for SJW is Useful Idiot [wikipedia.org] In the case of the Occupy movement the "SJW conspiracy" wasn't that feminists controlled the discussion it's that the FBI used SJWs to subvert and disarm the protests; Useful Idiots promoted this due to ideology, and good people like yourself ignored it because they didn't want to be seen as "racist" or "misogynists". A classic Psychological Warfare Operation... many of which are well documented thanks to FOIA requests, but you wouldn't be able to read them since the term "SJW" would keep you from taking it seriously... I mean, Classic. [youtube.com]
> Ignore them at your own risk. It was the SocJus crowd that ruined the Occupy movement
You start off with a proven falsehood, so the rest of your post is just TL;DR.
Yes, proven. FOIA releases [theguardian.com] show that Occupy was taken down by a nationwide coordination between FBI, DHS and local cops all made (laughably) legal by designating them to be a terrorist threat.
But if they had not marginalized themselves to make the general public stop caring, they could have been successful in changing the political landscape.
I was all for Occupy until it became this mouthpeice for that progressive stack bullshit that keeps coming up.
But, hey, if you don't want to read someone's post, you don't have to. No need to make up a excuse like "you said my triggering word."
Lol, such fantasies you have. The idea that anything so small could have stood against the billions of dollars worth of pressure applied by the US government and the banks is at best wishful thinking and more like victim blaming.
Re: reporting one's sexual identity to the RA:
“When did you discover your sexual identity?” the questionnaire asks.
“That is none of your damn business,” she writes.
“When was a time you felt oppressed?”
“I am oppressed every day [because of my] feelings for the opera. Regularly [people] throw stones at me and jeer me with cruel names…. Unbearable adversity. But I will overcome, hear me, you rock loving majority.”
Ha! I wish my younger self had that kind of wit when dealing with the culture shock of entering man's world again. Personally, I'm a fan of the rock opera. (Not to be confused with the rock lobster!… ok, that was lame.)
Wow, that's some serious shit in the article you linked. The sad thing is, given my own experiences a decade and a half ago in college, I totally believe the article.
Now, granted, the question about when one discovered one's sexual identity is a question I think any introspecting person should ask themselves. Myself, it happened when I realized that I had fallen for my first crush, not because he was born female, but because he was a man. However, I can't believe it's a requirement that dorm residents divulge that information! I mean, I'm not shy, but how dare they?!
So, I say to folks who are turned off by the term SJW, don't be too hasty. The term itself may leave things to be desired, but there are some truly toxic things—overtly sexist, racist, heterophobic, bisexually-erasing (not being facetious here) things (and even things that seem to exist in a quantum superposition of transphobic and cis-male-phobic states [again, not facetious])—that have been developing, especially on college campuses.
You are not unwarranted to call it Orwellian.
Ditto for non-Watergate -gates.
But SJW is more than just an offensively dumb term, it's loaded. It projects a vision of some kind of a quixotesque lynch mob, attacking random people with wooden swords on the internet. If you used that to describe yourself you'd be an idiot and if you refer to others that way you're manipulating the readers.
Not that this is anything special or restricted to one camp. Just that it's an obvious sign of where the biases will be.
But SJW is more than just an offensively dumb term, it's loaded. It projects a vision of some kind of a quixotesque lynch mob, attacking random people with wooden swords on the internet.
I think everyone imagines SJW the same way. But one side uses this as a rallying cry, and the other as a slur.
But one thing is for sure, using this terminology from either side is something that shuts down conversation. I would like to think people are rational and can work these issues out; but screams of misogynist and marxist is not going to help things.
> I think everyone imagines SJW the same way. But one side uses this as a rallying cry,
In the same way that gays use "fag" as a rallying cry.Don't be delusional.
This blog post [nathanielgivens.com] offers some interesting numerical analysis on the whole situation.
Hugo Awards Drama
Hugo awards sci-fi, not drama.
Looks to me like this year the books are SF, but the Hugos are drama.
First, my understanding of the situation, as someone not involved on either side:
There has been a conflict between two groups of people. The first group, which has largely steered the Hugos for many years, subscribes heavily to progressive (read "SJW) ideals. Many of the Hugo awards in recent years have gone to stories that presented progressive views, even when these stories had little or no science in them. The "Sad Puppy" movement consists of people who missed the "science" in "science fiction" and want this valued above the social agenda.
The situation has generated a number of odd viewpoints, which are also to be found in the Soylent comments.
First, there never was any ballot stuffing. The system is set up so that anyone who wants to, can register and vote. The Puppies campaign was nothing more than a "get out the vote" movement. If someone calls that "ballot stuffing", then that just indicates they don't approve of these new voters.
Second, accusations of misogyny and racism are pretty stupid, given that both sides are pretty diverse.
Third, voting "no award" is just weird. The people who voted that way could have nominated and voted for stories and novels that they liked. If they failed to nominate something that they liked, voting this way comes across like a spoiled child: "if I can't have my way, neither can you, nyah, nyah, poopy head".
Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong. I'll just do one your earlier errors
> The "Sad Puppy" movement consists of people who missed the "science" in "science fiction" and want this valued above the social agenda.
It's got nothing to do with "science" - its about their own personal definition of 'fun.'
“fandom” is giving “science fiction’s most prestigious award” to stories and books that bore the crap out of the people...entirely too short on the very elements that made Science Fiction and Fantasy exciting and fun in the first place!...ultimately lacking what might best be called visceral, gut-level, swashbuckling fun. The kind of child-like enjoyment that comes easily and naturally when you don’t have to crawl so far into your brain (or your navel) that you lose sight of the forest for the trees.
— Brad Torgersen [wordpress.com] Sad Puppies Co-Founder
Well, almost correct, but I think you misunderstand or misrepresent some things...
I feel some sympathy for the puppies, but the problem is they are infiltrated by a couple of very extreme persons. This is the reason why many writers simply withdrew instead of staying on the puppies slate. Some of these types want nothing more than simply ruining the Hugo's (read the wired take on this, I think it gives a good view on the situation). Unfortunately, a lot of people honestly caring about scifi do not realize they are being played.
The anti-puppy crowd is not made up of purely SJWs, any sane person wants to get rid of the puppy movement because of the extremist in there. Its much the same with gamergate actually.
Ballot stuffing: well, the problem is that to get listed you need a plurality, but to get the award you need a majority. The system allows you to group votes and fill the ballot with options that are dictated by an organized minority. This is valid within the voting system, so it is not correct to call it ballot stuffing. However, it is just as valid for the majority to then just select none of the options. That is also legal within the voting system.
Its not weird that "no award" is selected, its a direct result of the puppies action and an internal feedback by the voting mechanism.
Also, Buzzard deserves to burn in hell for making it seem that "no award" was somehow not what the voters liked. Its exactly what the majority of voters wanted. And its the puppies strategy to make it same that it is somehow not. If anything, this confirms they are being disingenuous and using the wrong means to justify their goals.
That how you read it? Cause, frankly, that's what both sides were hoping for this go-round. The SJWs wanted to NA the puppies because they didn't get to push an ideological agenda in those categories this time. The puppies wanted them to NA their picks for the very same reason so it would be apparent to everyone.
There are many things I may burn in hell for but you misunderstanding me is not one of them.
I think the majority indeed wanted a NA, but why misrepresent the issue by saying SJW want to burn the thing to the ground _instead_ of giving in to what the readers (i.e. voters) want?
Your reply somehow seems to turn around, as you say both sides prefer it. Instead, it would have been fair and honest to claim that the majority of voters preferred NA. Like on slashdot, some people try to make it seem as if the Hugo organization somehow went against the voters. And I think you are at least somewhat to blame for the same thing.
Its not a question of me misunderstanding, it about intentionally formulate it in a certain way (and I think its arguably an incorrect way, as another poster here pointed out) that may cause people to misunderstand. Of course, your way of writing results in a more lively discussion (the burning was not meant literally btw).
So 5 of 17 categories had no overall winner. Big deal, the rest of the winners seem to contain a majority of white males.
Unless Mighty Buzzard's attempts to bias this site with his horseshit stories are curtailed, it's just lost a submitter.
Sorry, we don't do censorship around here. If that's a problem, there's the metaphorical door; don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out.
I didn't ask for censorship, I asked for the basic minimum expectations of journalistic integrity to be upheld. I can't believe your one-sided rant got through the editorial process and was posted as a "news story", and I wasn't talking to you. I couldn't give a shit what you think, but it bugs the hell out of me that you abuse a platform like this to spread your venomous bollocks.
"Au Revoir, Soylentnews"
Are you quitting SN over this?
See: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=9150&cid=226888 [soylentnews.org] for my take
You turned SN into a GamerGate propaganda outlet because you were too stupid to see the submission was... screw it, just read my journal and hang your head in shame, you pathetic excuse for an editor.
I didn't do those things and you are being inflammatory and unfair. My response is on your journal [soylentnews.org].
Your submission is biased. I do not find myself to be a fan or your work. Maybe your good at running the site, but frankly I don't find your submissions to be thought provoking, or intelligent. It seems like you just want to stir the pot, and validate your own personal opinions in the comments.
Personally I would appreciate it if you kept your biases to yourself, no matter how good you are at coding the site.
Yeah, that's more or less fair except for one bit. I don't run the site, I just code it and might bounce the web front end if nobody else is around and it needs it. NCommander and paulej72 are our primary admins. The artist formerly known as juggs, mrcoolbp, and NCommander do the decision-making on Vision things.
I stopped submitting (and cut way back on posting, and reading) here mainly because of shitposts like this from Mighty Buzzard, though this is a particularly egregious example. There were plenty of ways to present this neutrally, but he really has zero interest in focusing on *information* and letting the viewpoints and politics hash themselves out in the comments, the way it should be done. Instead, he keeps trying to make Soylent a platform for his views, which isn't how a site like this should work.
Please, submit more!
I'll try to motivate myself to seek out strange new sources and new viewpoints even when the queue isn't drying up! To boldly go where no one has gone before! (Well, except the theoretical TFA I'll find, but you get my gist.)
Sure, we've got The Mighty Buzzard (whom as I understand, regardless of his/her viewpoint, we owe a lot to, not that it would matter in an ideal arena of ideas, just acknowledging that I could have helped out in the beginning but I didn't), and we've got Runaway and Aristarchus eternally battling it out. Soylentnews is people! People will disagree. I don't believe silence is an acceptable answer, not at least on this site.
I hope you do submit and use different sources. So much of the "mainstream" tech news is an echo chamber of re-chewed press releases. Some days it's quite hard to find enough grist for the mill here. Many yearn for more substance and so do I.
Wow, what a fracas. I took the day off on vacation with my family and returned to this.
I don't have a dog in the Hugo fight; once a voracious scifi reader, I haven't been able to finish a scifi novel in years (not even the richly imagined and well-written Aristoi). So all the did-they, didn't-they is sailing right over my head.
I am much more concerned about the internecine rancor coming out in this discussion. Slagging takyon and mighty buzzard for skewing the summary? Well, guys, if not for their hard work (which they do for no pay and scant praise, apparently) there is no soylent. How many of those tucking into them have done turns editing or even submitted articles? I don't recognize any of their handles as having done so.
Let's consider that this is a motley crew. Most are cheeky, surly, and weird. I believe they have valuable and interesting things to say. For me, the rough edges are a feature not a bug. The more the merrier.
The right answer and action for those who are disatisfied with the editing or article submissions is to step up and edit and submit. Let us vie with each other in the achievement of excellence on soylent, not in ever more vicious insults.
I figure the majority of readers are just busy making popcorn.
Personally, I enjoy seeing these stories as it brings these ugly disagreements into the light. I see so many "* in tech" opinion pieces in the news from people who MAYBE might be technical writers but are not "in tech". It is refreshing to see opinions voiced by the "tech" community, even when they are at odds with each other.
So, from an "in tech" person on a Monday: thanks to the editors, the submitters and the commenters. You brighten my day (hugs++).
What a confusing shitstorm. I feel like I'm reading a gamergate flamewar.
Consider: A woman named Adria Richards Twitter-shames two white dudes for cracking off-color jokes at PyCon, a tech developer conference (and then is fired and fields murder threats). GamerGate makes a political movement out of threatening with rape any woman who has the temerity to offer an opinion about a videogame.
Oh. That's because it is a gamergate flamewar.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Would sci-fi focus, as it has for much of its history, largely on brave white male engineers with ray guns fighting either a) hideous aliens or b) hideous governments who don’t want them to mine asteroids in space?
Poul Anderson'a Industrial Revolution [mcgrewbooks.com] is about asteroid miners fighting a big bad government, but there are women in the story and they do NOT play passive roles. In fact, few stories in Yesterday's Tomorrows are completely male-centric. Frederik Pohl's Day of the Boomer Dukes [mcgrewbooks.com] (1957) is a time travel story that takes place in Harlem, so most of its characters are black (and he writes their dialog excellently).
If more women wrote science fiction, more women would get Hugos. As to sexuality, why in the hell should I care who a writer is sleeping with if he or she writes good SF stories?
In my own Mars, Ho! [mcgrewbooks.com] two of the three main protagonists are women scientists, the third a man who's gone no farther than high school.
I'm planning on attending next year, Kansas City's only a few hundred miles away.
I don't follow the politics behind the Hugos, but I've been wondering for a while, what's going on with recent science fiction?
I grew up with Heinlein, Asimov, Smith, Niven, Bova, Pournelle, Forward, et al. Their stories started with a "what if?" based in science, but were primarily about people and society. Some stories were tragedies, but most left you with a sense of hope, optimism, and opportunity.
In recent years, if you can find SF at all in the sea of fantasy, I've found most of it to be a depressing post-apocalyptic mess. Where have the dreamers and the hopeful futurists gone? It's bad enough that I've mostly given up on what used to be my favourite genre.
Is this now our collective world mindset?
Sounds like the sad puppies are for you - their #1 complaint is that the Hugos don't go to "fun" stories any more. Maybe you should try some of their nominees. Presumably they are jam packed with fun.
See Planetes [wikipedia.org] for an interesting hard sci-fi about space and politics in cislunar orbit. It's not print, a little slow to get going, but I found it enjoyable as a whole. While it presents a future without transporters or warp drives, it is a fundamentally human story, about people and society as you suggest.
Also I found the first two books in the series the Hyperion Cantos [wikipedia.org] to be enjoyable. Particularly, I liked the concept of the Ousters, a group of humans who engage in genetic manipulation to attempt to evolve a race that is capable of living in space without the aid of “farcaster” wormholes. Not sure if that's to your tastes, but worth a look.
I've found most of it to be a depressing post-apocalyptic mess. Where have the dreamers and the hopeful futurists gone? It's bad enough that I've mostly given up on what used to be my favourite genre.
[looks around]... yes.
it documents changes in technology and society, and draws from current society and knowledge to make a world that is believable and immersive. To limit or leave the social part out is going to result in a crappy book.