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)
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]