SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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)
(Score: 5, Informative) by gman003 on Monday August 24 2015, @04:44AM
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.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 24 2015, @05:07AM
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.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @05:16AM
> 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!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @05:37PM
I could be wrong, but I think MBuzz is a "she".
(Score: 5, Informative) by Jiro on Monday August 24 2015, @05:19AM
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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @05:28AM
> 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.
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Monday August 24 2015, @05:31AM
Two minutes of Goggling "sad puppies" with "white males" indicates otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @05:39AM
> 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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @08:14AM
Oh shut the fuck up you drunk bastard..
(Score: 4, Informative) by Jiro on Monday August 24 2015, @02:12PM
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:
http://www.anarchogeekreview.com/opinion/hugo-scandal-2015 [anarchogeekreview.com]
"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. "
http://cosmologicsmagazine.com/this-week-in-science-religion-13/ [cosmologicsmagazine.com]
"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. "
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Monday August 24 2015, @02:52PM
Correction, those aren't all from the first page, I left in that first line by mistake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @07:07PM
"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.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday August 24 2015, @06:48AM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:08AM
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:22AM
> You don't see democracies suddenly voting to become dictatorships now do you?
Yeah, that's never happened.
Venezuela - Hugo Chavez
Philippines - Ferdinand Marcos
Germany - Adolf Hitler
Belarus - Alexander Lukashenko
Russia - Vladimir Putin
Zimbabwe - Robert Mugabe
etc
(Score: 2, Informative) by jmorris on Monday August 24 2015, @09:40AM
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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:47AM
> 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.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @05:58AM
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".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @06:23AM
> 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.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @06:33AM
From Wired:
I don't see momentum that depends on paid dues being sustained for very long.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday August 24 2015, @03:07PM
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.)
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 24 2015, @03:54PM
Man, I thought Slashdot editors were bad doing yellow journalism. Holy crap.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @04:06PM
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.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @04:07PM
The second part is from Theodore Beale
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:18AM
The summary has references. You have none.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @04:22PM
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.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Monday August 24 2015, @04:52PM
Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]