[Grizzly]

Or, reactionary conservatives react onconservatively, depending on your preferred title.

I am talking about the Sad Puppies. People who have, for some reason, decided that the Hugo awards are being rigged by liberals voting for liberal authors, and have decided that therefore the only way to counter this by even more vote rigging to a ridicilous level.

Which is weird, as the hugo awards are simply a bunch of geeks (no offense intended, geeks are awesome!) who paid 40 dollars so they could get together and promote good works of science fiction. The notion of "liberal vote rigging" seems more like a "Reality is left-wing" kind of thing rather then anything else, and...

Well it's bad. With the last reactionary conservative group in another form of entertainment still fresh in anyone's mind, it's sad to see that a smilar thing is happening to SFF writing.

[Bobboau]

yeah its bad that bad people get their bad opinions expressed, everyone knows that bad people count as less, what with all their crimethink. geeks are by definition allowed only to goodthink, if they are not goodthink then they are not geeks and therefore ineligible to vote for the geek award. there are no disagreements amungst the superior progressive geek race of which I am a representative. if you disagree with me then you are a racist and homophobe and sexist.

The Hugos still are simply a bunch of geeks who paid 40 dollars so they could get together and promote good works of science fiction. That is exactly what just happened, in spite of hyperbolic misrepresentations of who they are and what they represent. (BTW, good luck to anyone trying to find a straight forward explanation about what we are talking about). There are more of them than you, they have been in these fandoms as long as you have, they voted for good works, it's just their definition of "good" and your definition of "good" do not perfectly overlap. and they outnumber you. and now you are afraid you might not have been right all this time. and worst of all you might loose the argument and hegemony of thought.

I'm wondering, have you ever considered the possibility that, you were wrong about something? Ever? You seem awfuly certain that you are the good guy and they are the bad guy. Maybe the people you are witch hunting here have good points, unrelated to this, that their "reactionary conservative" is actually liberal, and you are the reactionary? After all you are the one who wants fewer voices heard. All I ever see from the people who think they are working for the greater good, "progressives", is intimidation, mockery, fear, disingenuous misrepresentation of people they disagree with, and arrogance. That isn't what I would consider progress, so you've lost me in your little army with that.

and... What does reactionary even mean? You seem to be using it as a synonym for bad or evil. Isn't it just something that comes as a consequence of change? Wouldn't Germans opposed the rise of the Nazis have been considered reactionary? why not? If you actually talk to some of these people you demonize you could find that many of them do not bear much similarity of the totem you have made to represent them. but what do I know, I used the wrong buzz words in the wrong way, flagging me as part of the out group therefore I'm wrong and full of crimethink. post discarded.

[Phantom Hoover]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

It's a specific political term.

[Bobboau]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

It's a specific political term.

thank you.

[The E]

After all you are the one who wants fewer voices heard. All I ever see from the people who think they are working for the greater good, "progressives", is intimidation, mockery, fear, disingenuous misrepresentation of people they disagree with, and arrogance. That isn't what I would consider progress, so you've lost me in your little army with that.

About that fewer voices thing... Have you looked at the actual result of this bloc voting campaign? John C Wright is suddenly nominated 3 times in a single category, very definitely crowding out at least two other writers. Bloc voting Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies style (And make no mistake: While the Sad Puppies slate is certainly slanted away from what is normally nominated for the Hugos, Vox Days' Rabid Puppies campaign (which is to the SP's as the Tea Party is to US republicans) was the actual winner here.

If we accept the SP's thesis, that the Hugos should be an indicator not only of goodness in the field, but also relative popularity, why is it that Castalia House, Vox Day's micro-publisher, is nominated this often?

There's an argument to be made about the Hugos being dominated by Tor. There's certainly some truth to that, as there is to the assumption that ideology does play a larger role than it should in terms of who gets book deals at the big houses and who doesn't. However, by dominating the Hugo nominations in a much more openly political way, with very clear political goals, SP/RP are radicalizing this whole thing to a huge degree.

[Scotty]

Bobbau:  I think the irony and/or newsworthy part of this is that a group concerned with political bias in science fiction writing awards decided to fix the problem... by removing any and all doubt of political bias and jamming it in there with a shovel.

It's a fairly dumb, obviously designed ploy to get views and attention by pointlessly radicalizing the issue.

[666maslo666]

Bobbau:  I think the irony and/or newsworthy part of this is that a group concerned with political bias in science fiction writing awards decided to fix the problem... by removing any and all doubt of political bias and jamming it in there with a shovel.

This.

It is possible that there was some left wing bias in the awards. Then a reactionary stance is the correct one. But, certainly not a reaction like this. It only makes the possibility of an apolitical awards less likely, as both sides turn their stupid tug of war up to eleven and make a mockery out of the Hugos.

[Ghostavo]

Been following this for a while now.

It's been kind of remarkable the kind of reporting the media has been throwing at this, calling the Sad Puppies basically every ism in the book, when if you look at the slates themselves is ridiculous.

Then you have the calls of no awards for authors which have been included in the slates, it's kind of obvious that the whole thing was politicized before the Sad Puppies even appeared.

[Scourge of Ages]

Came looking for puppies, was disappointed...

[General Battuta]

Been following this for a while now.

It's been kind of remarkable the kind of reporting the media has been throwing at this, calling the Sad Puppies basically every ism in the book, when if you look at the slates themselves is ridiculous.

Then you have the calls of no awards for authors which have been included in the slates, it's kind of obvious that the whole thing was politicized before the Sad Puppies even appeared.

The Sad Puppies are not easily distinguished from the Rabid Puppies and they know it. It wouldn't have been hard for them to renounce Vox Day, who is a straight-up white supremacist. Instead they put him on the ballot twice.

[Ghostavo]

Been following this for a while now.

It's been kind of remarkable the kind of reporting the media has been throwing at this, calling the Sad Puppies basically every ism in the book, when if you look at the slates themselves is ridiculous.

Then you have the calls of no awards for authors which have been included in the slates, it's kind of obvious that the whole thing was politicized before the Sad Puppies even appeared.

The Sad Puppies are not easily distinguished from the Rabid Puppies and they know it. It wouldn't have been hard for them to renounce Vox Day, who is a straight-up white supremacist. Instead they put him on the ballot twice.

I don't see Theodore Beale on the Sad Puppies slate. The fact that he started his own slate suggests he is acting independent of the Sad Puppies.

But let's disregard that. Let's say EVERY entry on the Sad Puppies ballot is Theodore Beale. Why should the fact that he is a "straight-up white supremacist", affect his chances if the Hugo are supposed to be (for the most part) awards for the work they've written?

[General Battuta]

No one should support white supremacists. No one should invite them to award ceremonies where they will share the room with people they've threatened to murder. I am a big advocate of complexity, but this is morally elementary.

I'm loathe to mix hobby and my day job. If you want to talk about this further please hit me up by email.

[Lorric]

I don't see Theodore Beale on the Sad Puppies slate. The fact that he started his own slate suggests he is acting independent of the Sad Puppies.

But let's disregard that. Let's say EVERY entry on the Sad Puppies ballot is Theodore Beale. Why should the fact that he is a "straight-up white supremacist", affect his chances if the Hugo are supposed to be (for the most part) awards for the work they've written?

I agree, ideally it should have zero impact. Because if you start in with "everyone except X is eligible", who gets to decide who or what "X" is? We have in our guidelines here "judge the post not the poster." Similarly for works, judge the work not the author I would say. Meritocracy. All equal on a level playing field.

Of course, something like the Hugo Awards isn't going to have that kind of robust neutrality in place, which is how something like this happened in the first place.

I think it will be very interesting to see how events unfold after this.

[Scotty]

I don't see Theodore Beale on the Sad Puppies slate. The fact that he started his own slate suggests he is acting independent of the Sad Puppies.

But let's disregard that. Let's say EVERY entry on the Sad Puppies ballot is Theodore Beale. Why should the fact that he is a "straight-up white supremacist", affect his chances if the Hugo are supposed to be (for the most part) awards for the work they've written?

I agree, ideally it should have zero impact. Because if you start in with "everyone except X is eligible", who gets to decide who or what "X" is? We have in our guidelines here "judge the post not the poster." Similarly for works, judge the work not the author I would say. Meritocracy. All equal on a level playing field.

"Everyone except bigots are eligible."

This sentence is valid, makes sense, and is a good idea.  It's pretty easy to define "bigot" and this is not a case of disallowing legitimate opposing political views.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I don't see Theodore Beale on the Sad Puppies slate. The fact that he started his own slate suggests he is acting independent of the Sad Puppies.

But let's disregard that. Let's say EVERY entry on the Sad Puppies ballot is Theodore Beale. Why should the fact that he is a "straight-up white supremacist", affect his chances if the Hugo are supposed to be (for the most part) awards for the work they've written?

I agree, ideally it should have zero impact. Because if you start in with "everyone except X is eligible", who gets to decide who or what "X" is? We have in our guidelines here "judge the post not the poster." Similarly for works, judge the work not the author I would say. Meritocracy. All equal on a level playing field.

"Everyone except bigots are eligible."

This sentence is valid, makes sense, and is a good idea.  It's pretty easy to define "bigot" and this is not a case of disallowing legitimate opposing political views.

No one should support white supremacists. No one should invite them to award ceremonies where they will share the room with people they've threatened to murder. I am a big advocate of complexity, but this is morally elementary.

I'm just gonna quote these because .

[Lorric]

I disagree. How do you define "bigot"?

As a football (soccer) fan, I see the ridiculous fines dished out to players for certain tweets.

How much do you have to do to be labelled a bigot and what proof is required? One bad tweet? The word of a bunch of people? A criminal record?

And who gets to determine what is and what isn't? The definitions will vary with different people. How many people you'd call bigots would call themselves bigots? How many people might be seen as bigots in one culture and not in another?

And there's always the risk that people decide to spread the net further. Who knows who or what could be included. Money could change hands to change the rules and ice rivals out of contention. Someone with their own agenda could get into the seat of power and start spreading that agenda.

And finally, why discriminate anyway? Because that's what this would be, discrimination. What harm does it do to have someone pick up an award if their work is deserving? They're not going to be a threat to anyone. I'd rather have someone who was truly a bigot spending their time creating fiction, especially if it was good enough to be up for awards and people could enjoy it, than spending time on creating hate.

[Scotty]

Useless muddling the point.

If you don't know what we mean by "bigot", Lorric, then the conversation is beyond you.  This is not an instance where equivocation will reach a better verdict.

[Lorric]

No, it's beyond you. Obviously you don't understand the point I'm making. Or just couldn't be bothered to try.

Useless muddling the point.

Classy.

[Scotty]

I understand the point you're trying to make Lorric.

I'm telling you that your point is wrong.

[Lorric]

Then please explain why.