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This discussion has been archived.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 bradley13 on Monday August 24 2015, @10:01AM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 24 2015, @10:01AM (#226960) Homepage Journal

    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".

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @10:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @10:15AM (#226963)

    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

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @10:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @10:25AM (#226967)

    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.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 24 2015, @10:58AM

      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.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @11:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @11:58AM (#226991)

        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).