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)
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.