Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday August 24 2015, @02:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the white-males-have-enough-awards dept.

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)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Monday August 24 2015, @06:48AM

    by gman003 (4155) on Monday August 24 2015, @06:48AM (#226901)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:08AM (#226940)

    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?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:22AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:22AM (#226943)

      > 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

    by jmorris (4844) on Monday August 24 2015, @09:40AM (#226952)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @09:47AM (#226955)

      > 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.