FSTDT Forums
Community => Entertainment and Television => Topic started by: Ironchew on April 26, 2016, 05:35:10 pm
-
The 2016 Hugo Finalists (http://midamericon2.org/home/hugo-awards-and-wsfs/2016-hugo-finalists) were announced earlier today. I didn't take a complete look but I'm seeing the usual suspects on the list (Vox, his Castalia House vanity press, etc.)
In short: whiny dark enlightenment losers setting themselves up for failure again this year.
-
Why oh why do these idiots try and gain acceptance in areas they never will?
-
It's about ethics in SF&F awards, clearly. You know, that hive of feminism and progressive values that is everyone-but-the-puppies.
-
There are valid reasons to criticize the puppies, but they have legitimate grievances.
-
How did I know?
How did I know yet another alt-right stake would be your stake too, UP?
-
Can we please save time and trouble now that UP's here? Just copy/paste last years thread, and zero fucks given, k? As of this moment, a potential intelligent discussion is stillborn.
-
How did I know?
How did I know yet another alt-right stake would be your stake too, UP?
Is "alt right" just code for "anything you don't like?"
-
"Legitimate reasons" in this case refers to their paranoid fantasy the Ess Jay Double Yews have scret cabals that botked the voting. Another one for our F&B dictionary.
-
"Legitimate reasons" in this case refers to their paranoid fantasy the Ess Jay Double Yews have scret cabals that botked the voting. Another one for our F&B dictionary.
It's nothing so grandiose as that. Here's what Correria had to say:
“Short Version:
1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
4. Point made.”
-
God every fucking time you just come charging in with a "now see here!" and don't understand why you're being baited.
Ironbite-fucking hell dude.
-
Yeah, point one was the aforementioned tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory pulled directly from the puppies hairy buttholes.
The rest is them justifying doing exactly ehat they accused the mythical legions of shadowy lefties in Fandom of doing.
Hmm, invent a conspiracy of the left because a bunch of people are saying something you don't like, gather a mob of manbabies to shit in the pool so nobody can use it. Reminds me of something, what was that again?
-
I was not kidding.
Oh my, would you Look at the time, gaize?! Have a Happy Sad Puppies Day, 2016!
Let's read the minutes from last year's meeting, started innocently enough by Askold:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/09/george-rr-martin-right-wing-broken-hugo-awards?CMP=share_btn_fb
http://www.catherynnemvalente.com/holding-the-hugos-and-the-english-language-hostage-for-fun-and-profit/
So... Apparently people have drawn politics into SF/F writing awards. Not the first time it has happened but this time Vox Day, Torgersen and their crew have been far more successful.
As Torgersen wrote:
[Twenty years ago] “if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds”. Nowadays, he claims, the same jacket is likely to be a story “merely about racial prejudice and exploitation, with interplanetary or interstellar trappings”.
OH NO! The damn commies are talking about social issues in their books rather than writing about brainless swashbuckling heroism where conservative heroes save damsels in distress! THIS ATROCITY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE! And as a result they organized voting to make sure that "proper" books win the award.
G.R.R. Martin complains that from now on Hugo awards will be won by the books that have had the best organized campaigns rather than those that were most liked by the readers.
-
How the fuck do all these guests storm into these kinds of threads?
You know, the ones whose sessions start within seconds of each other like they're being disseminated from a botnet.
-
"Legitimate reasons" in this case refers to their paranoid fantasy the Ess Jay Double Yews have scret cabals that botked the voting. Another one for our F&B dictionary.
It's nothing so grandiose as that. Here's what Correria had to say:
“Short Version:
1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
4. Point made.”
Ah. People who read are biased to the left, eh? Next you'll be telling me bears are biased to shitting in the woods.
-
I kind of wonder how these two books are related to Science Fiction - seeing as they are in the 'related works' category:
“Safe Space as Rape Room” by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)
-
I kind of wonder how these two books are related to Science Fiction - seeing as they are in the 'related works' category:
“Safe Space as Rape Room” by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)
If you wanted to get super-duper pretentious you could argue that it's speculative fiction wherein the laws of reality bend to the demented musings of the Redpiller mindset.
-
"Legitimate reasons" in this case refers to their paranoid fantasy the Ess Jay Double Yews have scret cabals that botked the voting. Another one for our F&B dictionary.
It's nothing so grandiose as that. Here's what Correria had to say:
“Short Version:
1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
4. Point made.”
Ah. People who read are biased to the left, eh? Next you'll be telling me bears are biased to shitting in the woods.
The problem is that judgments are being made on the political leanings of the authors, rather than the works themselves.
-
"Legitimate reasons" in this case refers to their paranoid fantasy the Ess Jay Double Yews have scret cabals that botked the voting. Another one for our F&B dictionary.
It's nothing so grandiose as that. Here's what Correria had to say:
“Short Version:
1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
4. Point made.”
Ah. People who read are biased to the left, eh? Next you'll be telling me bears are biased to shitting in the woods.
The problem is that judgments are being made on the political leanings of the authors, rather than the works themselves.
Whether or not that was actually a problem before these guys, it is the problem now.
-
"Legitimate reasons" in this case refers to their paranoid fantasy the Ess Jay Double Yews have scret cabals that botked the voting. Another one for our F&B dictionary.
It's nothing so grandiose as that. Here's what Correria had to say:
“Short Version:
1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
4. Point made.”
Ah. People who read are biased to the left, eh? Next you'll be telling me bears are biased to shitting in the woods.
The problem is that judgments are being made on the political leanings of the authors, rather than the works themselves.
Whether or not that was actually a problem before these guys, it is the problem now.
I think you're conflating the sad puppies and the rabid puppies.
-
"Legitimate reasons" in this case refers to their paranoid fantasy the Ess Jay Double Yews have scret cabals that botked the voting. Another one for our F&B dictionary.
It's nothing so grandiose as that. Here's what Correria had to say:
“Short Version:
1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
4. Point made.”
Ah. People who read are biased to the left, eh? Next you'll be telling me bears are biased to shitting in the woods.
The problem is that judgments are being made on the political leanings of the authors, rather than the works themselves.
Whether or not that was actually a problem before these guys, it is the problem now.
I think you're conflating the sad puppies and the rabid puppies.
They're 98.9% similar.
-
If it looks like a puppy, walks like a puppy, and barks like a puppy...
-
"Legitimate reasons" in this case refers to their paranoid fantasy the Ess Jay Double Yews have scret cabals that botked the voting. Another one for our F&B dictionary.
It's nothing so grandiose as that. Here's what Correria had to say:
“Short Version:
1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
4. Point made.”
Ah. People who read are biased to the left, eh? Next you'll be telling me bears are biased to shitting in the woods.
The problem is that judgments are being made on the political leanings of the authors, rather than the works themselves.
Whether or not that was actually a problem before these guys, it is the problem now.
I think you're conflating the sad puppies and the rabid puppies.
They're 98.9% similar.
They're similar in a lot of ways, yeah, but the rabid puppies are a lot worse.
-
Although they are both pushing the nomination of people not for the quality of their books but because of their right wing politics.
-
Although they are both pushing the nomination of people not for the quality of their books but because of their right wing politics.
I'm not entirely sure how true that is.
-
Although they are both pushing the nomination of people not for the quality of their books but because of their right wing politics.
I'm not entirely sure how true that is.
Except it's the entire premise behind both groups. It's kind of what they were formed to do. But I think we're missing the bigger point of what is really true.
-
Although they are both pushing the nomination of people not for the quality of their books but because of their right wing politics.
I'm not entirely sure how true that is.
Except it's the entire premise behind both groups. It's kind of what they were formed to do. But I think we're missing the bigger point of what is really true.
If it is true, then the purpose is to demonstrate ideological bias among the voters.
-
Although they are both pushing the nomination of people not for the quality of their books but because of their right wing politics.
I'm not entirely sure how true that is.
Except it's the entire premise behind both groups. It's kind of what they were formed to do. But I think we're missing the bigger point of what is really true.
If it is true, then the purpose is to demonstrate ideological bias among the voters.
Or to manipulate the nominations. Besides how can you be so sure of their purpose if you are uncertain of whether the action is true?
-
Hey UP, I've got a couple more direct questions:
Do you read science fiction or fantasy nearly enough to care this deeply about this year's Hugo awards?
Are you tilting at this windmill because Milo and co. have directed you to do so?
-
Why don't you guys go lobby The Edgars, ya know, the detective and crime story awards? Moping and griping about "bias" amongst SciFi and fantasy readers is like bitching that there ain't no meat served at a Hindu wedding banquet.
-
Although they are both pushing the nomination of people not for the quality of their books but because of their right wing politics.
I'm not entirely sure how true that is.
Except it's the entire premise behind both groups. It's kind of what they were formed to do. But I think we're missing the bigger point of what is really true.
If it is true, then the purpose is to demonstrate ideological bias among the voters.
Or to manipulate the nominations. Besides how can you be so sure of their purpose if you are uncertain of whether the action is true?
Because Correia said as much:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/24/an-explanation-about-the-hugo-awards-controversy/ (http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/04/24/an-explanation-about-the-hugo-awards-controversy/)
I’ve said for a long time that the awards are biased against authors because of their personal beliefs. Authors can either cheer lead for left wing causes, or they can keep their mouth shut. Open disagreement is not tolerated and will result in being sabotaged and slandered. Message or identity politics has become far more important than entertainment or quality. I was attacked for saying this. I knew that when an admitted right winger got in they would be maligned and politicked against, not for the quality of their art but rather for their unacceptable beliefs.
If one of us outspoken types got nominated, the inevitable backlash, outrage, and plans for their sabotage would be very visible. So I decided to prove this bias and launched a campaign I called Sad Puppies (because boring message fiction is the leading cause of Puppy Related Sadness).
Hey UP, I've got a couple more direct questions:
Do you read science fiction or fantasy nearly enough to care this deeply about this year's Hugo awards?
Kind of. I'm more of a casual fan, but I'd say that's enough of a stake to care.
Are you tilting at this windmill because Milo and co. have directed you to do so?
No, I learned about this on my own.
Why don't you guys go lobby The Edgars, ya know, the detective and crime story awards? Moping and griping about "bias" amongst SciFi and fantasy readers is like bitching that there ain't no meat served at a Hindu wedding banquet.
Bias may or may not be an accepted norm, but either way, it shouldn't influence the voting.
-
He proved the bias by orchestrating a campaign to rig the nomination for an outspoken right winger (of which he just happens to be one).
Also you aren't at all concerned that his statement of purpose might be a touch self serving?
-
He proved the bias by orchestrating a campaign to rig the nomination for an outspoken right winger (of which he just happens to be one).
Rig the nomination? Hardly. Even John Scalzi admitted he didn't do anything out of the ordinary.
Also you aren't at all concerned that his statement of purpose might be a touch self serving?
Yeah, that's a possibility. Believe me, I have my reservations about the puppies too.
-
Really? If you did you couldn't state their purpose with such confidence.
-
Really? If you did you couldn't state their purpose with such confidence.
There's a difference between "self-serving" and "dishonest."
-
There's a difference between 'dishonest' and 'unreliable'.
Edit: Also it is illuminating that you can dismiss Rationalwiki in its entirety as a source because you know the author is so 'biased' but have no problem gulping down what this guy says without question.
-
Did the Sad Puppies actually do anything this year? It was my understanding that only the Rabid ones did. Hence Vox Day.
-
Edit: Also it is illuminating that you can dismiss Rationalwiki in its entirety as a source because you know the author is so 'biased' but have no problem gulping down what this guy says without question.
The reactions seem to prove that he's at least partly right.
Did the Sad Puppies actually do anything this year? It was my understanding that only the Rabid ones did. Hence Vox Day.
I'm not sure, I haven't followed the drama that much.
-
Just enough to give us the benefit of your analysis eh?
-
So what if people are basing their votes on the politics of the author? Many right-wing policies do harm and endanger several groups of people. Asking these people to suspend their own animosity towards someone who espouses these policies and to vote for people who think of them as lesser is the height of entitlement. I don't care if Orson Scott Card makes a scifi story that is like God's jizz on heavenly parchment, he's still a virulent homophobe who is actively trying to make life harder for me and mine, I'm not obligated to vote for his fuckdumpster ass.*
*this is a hypothetical, I neither know nor care if Card is a nominee
-
It's very simple: The fandom is growing more and more "leftist" (I am using this term the way the puppies are, referring to anyone who isn't part of the alt-right group that makes up the puppies. You know, "leftists" the kinds of people who don't hate feminism, who like to see inclusive fiction that isn't just MANLY WHITE MEN SAVING THE DAY WHILE WOMEN ARE THERE ONLY AS SEX SYMBOLS! ...Minorities need not apply.) and rather than an organized assault on the core values the puppies love it's just quite natural that the people used to vote for things they liked.
Sure, there may be an backlash against a writer who is racist, homophobic or otherwise against what the majority of the fans like but I would like to point out that if a writer would officially come out to support things that the alt-right hates then there would be a similar backlash, with the difference that as the non-"leftists" are reducing in numbers the backlash wouldn't be quite as big. ...And why am I speaking hypothetically since this is exactly what the puppies are.
Another problem is that everyone likes to think that they make up the silent majority so the Puppies are a reaction to seeing that the world does not work the way these people assumed and instead of admitting that they and their beliefs are less popular they conjured up some conspiracy theory that they could blame instead.
-
Ultie, let me ask you this - if a book was submitted by an unrepentent Nazi, who believes Hitler was 100% justified in murdering six million Jews, would you judge his book called "Utopia of the Ubermensch" for its content, or for the fact it was written by an unrepentent Nazi who includes that transgender people in his novel are burned alive?
Would you be able to separate your judgement of his book's writing from the atrocious political agenda?
You say we should judge a right wing book for its content and not for its political agenda, whereas the right wing looks for any excuse to call a book "shamelessly liberal." As if being a liberal is something you need to be ashamed of. By contrast espousing Republican politics doesn't get you nearly as much direct and conscious vitriol.
-
Ultie, let me ask you this - if a book was submitted by an unrepentent Nazi, who believes Hitler was 100% justified in murdering six million Jews, would you judge his book called "Utopia of the Ubermensch" for its content, or for the fact it was written by an unrepentent Nazi who includes that transgender people in his novel are burned alive?
Would you be able to separate your judgement of his book's writing from the atrocious political agenda?
You say we should judge a right wing book for its content and not for its political agenda, whereas the right wing looks for any excuse to call a book "shamelessly liberal." As if being a liberal is something you need to be ashamed of. By contrast espousing Republican politics doesn't get you nearly as much direct and conscious vitriol.
I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.
It's very simple: The fandom is growing more and more "leftist" (I am using this term the way the puppies are, referring to anyone who isn't part of the alt-right group that makes up the puppies. You know, "leftists" the kinds of people who don't hate feminism, who like to see inclusive fiction that isn't just MANLY WHITE MEN SAVING THE DAY WHILE WOMEN ARE THERE ONLY AS SEX SYMBOLS! ...Minorities need not apply.) and rather than an organized assault on the core values the puppies love it's just quite natural that the people used to vote for things they liked.
I'll let Larry do a little talking:
Many of you have never heard of me before, but the internet was quick to explain to you what a horrible person I am. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts. The character assassination has started as well, and my detractors posted and tweeted and told anyone who would listen about how I was a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a rape apologist, an angry white man, a religious fanatic, and how I wanted to drag homosexuals to death behind my pickup truck.
The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn’t talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety.
I wish I was exaggerating. Don’t take my word for it. My readers have been collecting a lot of them in the comments of the previous Hugo post and on my Facebook page. Plug my name into Google for the last few days. Make sure to read the comments to the various articles too. They’re fantastic.
Of course, none of this stuff is true, but it was expected. I knew if I succeeded I would be attacked. To the perpetually outraged the truth doesn’t matter, just feelings and narrative. I’d actually like to thank all of those people making stuff up about me because they are proving the point I was trying to make to begin with.
Sure, there may be an backlash against a writer who is racist, homophobic or otherwise against what the majority of the fans like but I would like to point out that if a writer would officially come out to support things that the alt-right hates then there would be a similar backlash, with the difference that as the non-"leftists" are reducing in numbers the backlash wouldn't be quite as big. ...And why am I speaking hypothetically since this is exactly what the puppies are.
Why do you think they're alt-right?
Another problem is that everyone likes to think that they make up the silent majority so the Puppies are a reaction to seeing that the world does not work the way these people assumed and instead of admitting that they and their beliefs are less popular they conjured up some conspiracy theory that they could blame instead.
The last few days have been kind of awesome. I said that for the Hugo’s the writer’s politics were more important than the quality of their work. I was called a liar. Yet, within a couple of hours of the announcement there were multiple posts from the other side where groups of SJWs were strategizing how to make sure No Award beat me, and how to punish every other artist I recommended as well. Others were complaining that the rules needed to be changed to keep the undesirables out. All of this was while they proudly bragged how they had not read me, nor ever would… because tolerance. Hell if I know.
As the old saying goes, you aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you.
-
Ultie, let me ask you this - if a book was submitted by an unrepentent Nazi, who believes Hitler was 100% justified in murdering six million Jews, would you judge his book called "Utopia of the Ubermensch" for its content, or for the fact it was written by an unrepentent Nazi who includes that transgender people in his novel are burned alive?
Would you be able to separate your judgement of his book's writing from the atrocious political agenda?
You say we should judge a right wing book for its content and not for its political agenda, whereas the right wing looks for any excuse to call a book "shamelessly liberal." As if being a liberal is something you need to be ashamed of. By contrast espousing Republican politics doesn't get you nearly as much direct and conscious vitriol.
I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.
Pretty sure "Utopia of the ubermensch" would indicate that the book might be a tad right wing in tone.
Just a tad.
-
Ultie, let me ask you this - if a book was submitted by an unrepentent Nazi, who believes Hitler was 100% justified in murdering six million Jews, would you judge his book called "Utopia of the Ubermensch" for its content, or for the fact it was written by an unrepentent Nazi who includes that transgender people in his novel are burned alive?
Would you be able to separate your judgement of his book's writing from the atrocious political agenda?
You say we should judge a right wing book for its content and not for its political agenda, whereas the right wing looks for any excuse to call a book "shamelessly liberal." As if being a liberal is something you need to be ashamed of. By contrast espousing Republican politics doesn't get you nearly as much direct and conscious vitriol.
I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.
Pretty sure "Utopia of the ubermensch" would indicate that the book might be a tad right wing in tone.
Just a tad.
For the book itself? Then yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with voting it down based on politics.
-
I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.
Is that a yes or no? Because you appear to be missing the point here. Is SJW-Sally writes a book and her ideologies are against everything you love will you judge the book based on the author or the content? If Nazi-fanboy-88 writes a book will you judge the book based on the author or the content?
-
I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.
Is that a yes or no? Because you appear to be missing the point here. Is SJW-Sally writes a book and her ideologies are against everything you love will you judge the book based on the author or the content? If Nazi-fanboy-88 writes a book will you judge the book based on the author or the content?
Depends on how much the author's politics bleed into the book.
-
I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.
Is that a yes or no? Because you appear to be missing the point here. Is SJW-Sally writes a book and her ideologies are against everything you love will you judge the book based on the author or the content? If Nazi-fanboy-88 writes a book will you judge the book based on the author or the content?
Depends on how much the author's politics bleed into the book.
That's still not the answer to the actual question. DO YOU JUDGE A BOOK BASED ON THE WRITER OR THE CONTENT!?
And why is it wrong when the LIBRUL-kids vote against books that have politics they don't like but ok if the Puppies do the same?
-
Ultie, let me ask you this - if a book was submitted by an unrepentent Nazi, who believes Hitler was 100% justified in murdering six million Jews, would you judge his book called "Utopia of the Ubermensch" for its content, or for the fact it was written by an unrepentent Nazi who includes that transgender people in his novel are burned alive?
Would you be able to separate your judgement of his book's writing from the atrocious political agenda?
You say we should judge a right wing book for its content and not for its political agenda, whereas the right wing looks for any excuse to call a book "shamelessly liberal." As if being a liberal is something you need to be ashamed of. By contrast espousing Republican politics doesn't get you nearly as much direct and conscious vitriol.
I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.
Bolding mine. You were saying?
-
Another problem is that everyone likes to think that they make up the silent majority so the Puppies are a reaction to seeing that the world does not work the way these people assumed and instead of admitting that they and their beliefs are less popular they conjured up some conspiracy theory that they could blame instead.
The last few days have been kind of awesome. I said that for the Hugo’s the writer’s politics were more important than the quality of their work. I was called a liar. Yet, within a couple of hours of the announcement there were multiple posts from the other side where groups of SJWs were strategizing how to make sure No Award beat me, and how to punish every other artist I recommended as well. Others were complaining that the rules needed to be changed to keep the undesirables out. All of this was while they proudly bragged how they had not read me, nor ever would… because tolerance. Hell if I know.
As the old saying goes, you aren't paranoid if they really are out to get you.
Was that before or after the Puppies started doing the same? Are we seeing a counter reaction or not?
And I used the term alt-right because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right The opposition to multiculturalism and feminism ring a bell and although SJWs weren't mentioned in the article it does look like alt-right would hate them so it all fits.
Also, Milo was mentioned in the article and turns out that your fan-movement is being linked to alt-right as well through him so is that why you are defending the Puppies?
-
I'm talking about the politics of the authors themselves, not the books.
Is that a yes or no? Because you appear to be missing the point here. Is SJW-Sally writes a book and her ideologies are against everything you love will you judge the book based on the author or the content? If Nazi-fanboy-88 writes a book will you judge the book based on the author or the content?
Depends on how much the author's politics bleed into the book.
That's still not the answer to the actual question. DO YOU JUDGE A BOOK BASED ON THE WRITER OR THE CONTENT!?
And why is it wrong when the LIBRUL-kids vote against books that have politics they don't like but ok if the Puppies do the same?
You judge a book based on the content. And honestly, I think they're probably going about this wrong.
-
Everything eventually ties back into GG with him.
He's managed to circumvent the ban on talking about GG outside of F&B by talking about things that members of That Movement are for or against or involved with.
Edit - and lets continue with the Nazi.
His content is rife with his politics - all the "villains" are Jewish stereotypes who are described as having "large, bulbous kike noses", and the "evil minions" are all black stereotypes "their names all Latashiniqua if female or Denashandriq if male". The back is signed Heil Hitler.
Now then - do you judge Utopia of the Ubermensch for the content or the politics involved in the author's "vision".
-
Everything eventually ties back into GG with him.
He's managed to circumvent the ban on talking about GG outside of F&B by talking about things that members of That Movement are for or against or involved with.
Edit - and lets continue with the Nazi.
His content is rife with his politics - all the "villains" are Jewish stereotypes who are described as having "large, bulbous kike noses", and the "evil minions" are all black stereotypes "their names all Latashiniqua if female or Denashandriq if male".
Now then - do you judge Utopia of the Ubermensch for his content or his politics?
When the politics are in the book itself, it can be judged based on them. However, authors simply holding certain beliefs is no reason to mark down their books. Would you give Apocalypto a bad review because of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism?
-
Everything eventually ties back into GG with him.
He's managed to circumvent the ban on talking about GG outside of F&B by talking about things that members of That Movement are for or against or involved with.
Edit - and lets continue with the Nazi.
His content is rife with his politics - all the "villains" are Jewish stereotypes who are described as having "large, bulbous kike noses", and the "evil minions" are all black stereotypes "their names all Latashiniqua if female or Denashandriq if male". The back is signed Heil Hitler.
Now then - do you judge Utopia of the Ubermensch for the content or the politics involved in the author's "vision".
What the fuck is with your obsession with Nazis?
-
I just used them as the most convenient example of an identifiable belief system.
I could just as easily say that for an opposite alignment, would you say that a Stalinist Author should be judged for his political beliefs if his book included passages saying "all rich men are nothing but power hungry jackals who need to be ruthlessly killed", and similar?
-
I just used them as the most convenient example of an identifiable belief system.
I could just as easily say that for an opposite alignment, would you say that a Stalinist Author should be judged for his political beliefs if his book included passages saying "all rich men are nothing but power hungry jackals who need to be ruthlessly killed", and similar?
Eh, Stalin didn't give a toss about the rich. His hate on was for "wreckers" who just happened to be anyone he suspected of plotting against him.
EDIT: Well, yeah-sorta. He did liquidate the Kulaks which translates to "land owning farmer who hires laborers" in his collectivisation drive.
-
Getting a straight answer out of UP is just...amazing.
Ironbite-like getting money out of my sister.
-
When the politics are in the book itself, it can be judged based on them. However, authors simply holding certain beliefs is no reason to mark down their books. Would you give Apocalypto a bad review because of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism?
...So now that we have almost gotten an answer out of you: seeing as the Puppies are an ideological organization that only votes on books based on the politics of the author and whether or not they suit the Puppies, how can you defend them? Furthermore, before you go with "but the other side is also doing it" can you prove that there was a progressive conspiracy that targeted authors purely based on their politics and not based on what they wrote? Specifically, can you even prove that writers who did not in any way put their own ideologies into their books suffered BEFORE the Puppies began the organized voting?
-
Didya hafta Askold?
Now we can expect a tsunami of unread links and MS paint that borks the tables on the page with no spoiler tags.
And also no real answer to your question!
-
After last year, when they refused to hand out any awards at all in certain categories because the chance some nasty right winger might win, i think the Hugos have lost their minds. Its going to be another shitstorm this year, and it will be hilarious.
-
After last year, when they refused to hand out any awards at all in certain categories because the chance some nasty right winger might win, i think the Hugos have lost their minds. Its going to be another shitstorm this year, and it will be hilarious.
/pol/ peeks his head in to offer chan-wisdom.
-
When the politics are in the book itself, it can be judged based on them. However, authors simply holding certain beliefs is no reason to mark down their books. Would you give Apocalypto a bad review because of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism?
...So now that we have almost gotten an answer out of you: seeing as the Puppies are an ideological organization that only votes on books based on the politics of the author and whether or not they suit the Puppies, how can you defend them? Furthermore, before you go with "but the other side is also doing it" can you prove that there was a progressive conspiracy that targeted authors purely based on their politics and not based on what they wrote? Specifically, can you even prove that writers who did not in any way put their own ideologies into their books suffered BEFORE the Puppies began the organized voting?
Somebody already proved the ideological biases using math:
https://madgeniusclub.com/2014/08/25/a-very-surprised-looking-sperm-whale-and-a-bowl-of-petunias/ (https://madgeniusclub.com/2014/08/25/a-very-surprised-looking-sperm-whale-and-a-bowl-of-petunias/)
-
When the politics are in the book itself, it can be judged based on them. However, authors simply holding certain beliefs is no reason to mark down their books. Would you give Apocalypto a bad review because of Mel Gibson's anti-Semitism?
...So now that we have almost gotten an answer out of you: seeing as the Puppies are an ideological organization that only votes on books based on the politics of the author and whether or not they suit the Puppies, how can you defend them? Furthermore, before you go with "but the other side is also doing it" can you prove that there was a progressive conspiracy that targeted authors purely based on their politics and not based on what they wrote? Specifically, can you even prove that writers who did not in any way put their own ideologies into their books suffered BEFORE the Puppies began the organized voting?
Somebody already proved the ideological biases using math:
https://madgeniusclub.com/2014/08/25/a-very-surprised-looking-sperm-whale-and-a-bowl-of-petunias/ (https://madgeniusclub.com/2014/08/25/a-very-surprised-looking-sperm-whale-and-a-bowl-of-petunias/)
a) You are again missing the point.
b) That dude writes like someone who deserves to get punched in their whore mouth. The arrogance that comes from his "I am SOOO much smarter than everyone else and I only recently realized how fucking stupid other people are since they don't even count mathematical odds in their heads all day." That is not how you make an argument in a debate. That's just showing off and if you really want to make someone see things your way you should not insult them with every other word. (But this is something that I've also said about SJWs.)
c) I did not ask you to prove that the ideology of the writers does not matter to the voters. I have asked you to prove that the people were voting ONLY based on the ideology of the writer even if it did not show in the book. When you read something like to Sword of truth the ideology is very much present in the books and sometimes it seems that the books only exist to be writer tracts, to show how objectivism is the one true path and how people who do not support killing unarmed civilians are evil and must be killed before they destroy the nation.
d) This dude doesn't actually understand how probabilities work:
What LUCK the reds have! Still, that’ll be much less for them in future. After all out of every 100 noms they should get 15. And they’ve already had 3. And the other two balls are more-or-less white. No blacks.
So we go on to 2006. And lo. There are 3 more red balls… and two whites, and no blacks. Miracle of miracles because everybody knows there is no ideological bias in Hugo awards. And the old man says: “Well son. Two years in a row! It’ll be your great-great-grandsons’s time before that happens again two years in a row!”
He thinks that the previous results will affect the future results. For all his talk about math he suddenly seems to think that luck is a thing that exists and that it can be "used up." If I toss a coin 50 times in a row then, yes getting it heads up everytime is really improbable BUT if I have tossed it 49 times and gotten heads 49 times what are the odds of getting heads on my next toss? If you think that the answer is anything other than 50% then you don't know how probabilities work.
-
Didya hafta Askold?
Now we can expect a tsunami of unread links and MS paint that borks the tables on the page with no spoiler tags.
And also no real answer to your question!
Sorry, looks like you were right.
-
b) That dude writes like someone who deserves to get punched in their whore mouth. The arrogance that comes from his "I am SOOO much smarter than everyone else and I only recently realized how fucking stupid other people are since they don't even count mathematical odds in their heads all day." That is not how you make an argument in a debate. That's just showing off and if you really want to make someone see things your way you should not insult them with every other word. (But this is something that I've also said about SJWs.)
He's egotistical and tactless, I'll agree with you there. But that doesn't make him wrong.
c) I did not ask you to prove that the ideology of the writers does not matter to the voters. I have asked you to prove that the people were voting ONLY based on the ideology of the writer even if it did not show in the book. When you read something like to Sword of truth the ideology is very much present in the books and sometimes it seems that the books only exist to be writer tracts, to show how objectivism is the one true path and how people who do not support killing unarmed civilians are evil and must be killed before they destroy the nation.
I don't think that kind of thing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. What can be proven, however, is that the author's political views are given far more weight than they should be. Do you honestly think those results are just coincidence?
d) This dude doesn't actually understand how probabilities work:
What LUCK the reds have! Still, that’ll be much less for them in future. After all out of every 100 noms they should get 15. And they’ve already had 3. And the other two balls are more-or-less white. No blacks.
So we go on to 2006. And lo. There are 3 more red balls… and two whites, and no blacks. Miracle of miracles because everybody knows there is no ideological bias in Hugo awards. And the old man says: “Well son. Two years in a row! It’ll be your great-great-grandsons’s time before that happens again two years in a row!”
He thinks that the previous results will affect the future results. For all his talk about math he suddenly seems to think that luck is a thing that exists and that it can be "used up." If I toss a coin 50 times in a row then, yes getting it heads up everytime is really improbable BUT if I have tossed it 49 times and gotten heads 49 times what are the odds of getting heads on my next toss? If you think that the answer is anything other than 50% then you don't know how probabilities work.
Good catch, I missed that one. Nevertheless, the implausibility of this happening again and again remains.
-
It must be awful easy for UP to just sit there and disrupt a discussion by going "Nuh-uh" over and over again.
It's plainly obvious disruption is the only strategy he has; all it does is make him look slimy as he stands closer and closer to his alt-right buddies.
-
It must be awful easy for UP to just sit there and disrupt a discussion by going "Nuh-uh" over and over again.
It's plainly obvious disruption is the only strategy he has; all it does is make him look slimy as he stands closer and closer to his alt-right buddies.
I'd rather him stand by his alt-right buddies than beside any child. Especially one in the range of 7-9 years old.
-
Hey now. Lets keep that sorta stuff where it belongs.
Ironbite-not on this board.
-
Ultie's already basically breaking the rules against talking about That outside F&B.
Just like how he breaks the law about those kinds of pictures of children.
-
UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?
-
UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?
You're missing the point. The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.
-
*munches popcorn*
Ironbite-fascinating.
-
UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?
You're missing the point. The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.
Not really. In fact, it could say any number of things. Like that most sci-fi readers tend to lean to the left, and they tend to enjoy left-leaning books because of that (and before you say anything, it's impossible to completely write bias out of your book. It will be there). Or perhaps it says that Having left-wing leanings tends to correlate with being a better writer. Or any number of other possibilities.
Personally, I'm going with the theory that science fiction is naturally biased towards the left wing, because the right wing is so thoroughly and virulently anti-science. Sure, I have no conclusive evidence, but then, neither do you.
-
UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?
You're missing the point. The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.
Not really. In fact, it could say any number of things. Like that most sci-fi readers tend to lean to the left, and they tend to enjoy left-leaning books because of that (and before you say anything, it's impossible to completely write bias out of your book. It will be there). Or perhaps it says that Having left-wing leanings tends to correlate with being a better writer. Or any number of other possibilities.
Personally, I'm going with the theory that science fiction is naturally biased towards the left wing, because the right wing is so thoroughly and virulently anti-science. Sure, I have no conclusive evidence, but then, neither do you.
If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?
-
UP, for a guy who loves his scarecrow pics you've missed a huge detail in this guys argument. Here, I'll help.
‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’
The thing is, the Sad and Rabid puppies detractors never argued that.
What Correia argued (http://www.jimchines.com/2015/06/puppies-in-their-own-words/) was this:
“The ugly truth is that the most prestigious award in sci-fi/fantasy is basically just a popularity contest, where the people who are popular with a tiny little group of WorldCon voters get nominated and thousands of other works are ignored. Books that tickle them are declared good and anybody who publically deviates from groupthink is bad. Over time this lame ass award process has become increasingly snooty and pretentious…
That's the argument, that there is a tiny little group of WorldCon voters who vote out pulp and vote in lefty stuff he doesn't like. An argument that has never been based on anything but hearsay.
Arguing that this argument is based on thin air =/= arguing that ‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’ thereby converting the rest of Davefreer's rant to a festering pile entirely composed of decaying dingo bollocks.
-
UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?
You're missing the point. The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.
Not really. In fact, it could say any number of things. Like that most sci-fi readers tend to lean to the left, and they tend to enjoy left-leaning books because of that (and before you say anything, it's impossible to completely write bias out of your book. It will be there). Or perhaps it says that Having left-wing leanings tends to correlate with being a better writer. Or any number of other possibilities.
Personally, I'm going with the theory that science fiction is naturally biased towards the left wing, because the right wing is so thoroughly and virulently anti-science. Sure, I have no conclusive evidence, but then, neither do you.
If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?
Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.
-
If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?
Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.
They might not all even have been shit. They just had to have been not good enough compared to others that were not nominated. It could have been a protest against the open manipulation of the nomination process by the sad/rabid puppies that left (what the voters thought were) more deserving nominees out.
-
UP, for a guy who loves his scarecrow pics you've missed a huge detail in this guys argument. Here, I'll help.
‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’
The thing is, the Sad and Rabid puppies detractors never argued that.
They haven't, but I think defenders of the Hugos have.
What Correia argued (http://www.jimchines.com/2015/06/puppies-in-their-own-words/) was this:
“The ugly truth is that the most prestigious award in sci-fi/fantasy is basically just a popularity contest, where the people who are popular with a tiny little group of WorldCon voters get nominated and thousands of other works are ignored. Books that tickle them are declared good and anybody who publically deviates from groupthink is bad. Over time this lame ass award process has become increasingly snooty and pretentious…
That's the argument, that there is a tiny little group of WorldCon voters who vote out pulp and vote in lefty stuff he doesn't like. An argument that has never been based on anything but hearsay.
Arguing that this argument is based on thin air =/= arguing that ‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’ thereby converting the rest of Davefreer's rant to a festering pile entirely composed of decaying dingo bollocks.
Yeah, there's evidence that this actually happens. Why don't you take a look down below?
UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?
You're missing the point. The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.
Not really. In fact, it could say any number of things. Like that most sci-fi readers tend to lean to the left, and they tend to enjoy left-leaning books because of that (and before you say anything, it's impossible to completely write bias out of your book. It will be there). Or perhaps it says that Having left-wing leanings tends to correlate with being a better writer. Or any number of other possibilities.
Personally, I'm going with the theory that science fiction is naturally biased towards the left wing, because the right wing is so thoroughly and virulently anti-science. Sure, I have no conclusive evidence, but then, neither do you.
If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?
Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.
I think there's another explanation:
(https://i.imgur.com/XTCE0MF.png)
-
UP, for a guy who loves his scarecrow pics you've missed a huge detail in this guys argument. Here, I'll help.
‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’
The thing is, the Sad and Rabid puppies detractors never argued that.
They haven't, but I think defenders of the Hugos have.
That's nice dear. Are your thoughts based on anything that can be traced back to the real world?
Also, cart before the horse. Counter puppy reactions happened after the puppys tried to puppy-hump the Hugos. Does not establish that the puppies had anything but their own paranoia to go on to begin with.
-
If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?
Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.
I think there's another explanation:
(https://i.imgur.com/XTCE0MF.png)
I think it's more likely that people, disillusioned with the open manipulation of the nominations and angry at what they see as a subversion of the democratic process, voted No Award in a protest vote, than that it can all be traced back to a post on Twitter with two (2) likes of some guy offering people money to vote a certain way.
-
UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?
You're missing the point. The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.
Amusing, considering the only author to win both the Hugo and Nebula Awards in consecutive years was described in this thread as "a virulent homophobe who is actively trying to make life harder for me and mine".
-
(https://i.imgur.com/XTCE0MF.png)
You still need to prove that people took Chu seriously and changed their votes if you want to make the claim that the voting was ideologically tilted. The only thing this proves is that he is an asshole and tried to influence the vote.
Edited to clarify my point.
-
I would not need his money to vote against a scumbag like John C. Wright.
I'd vote No Award before countenancing any of his filth.
The same goes for Pox Day.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/XTCE0MF.png)
You still need to prove that people took Chu seriously and changed their votes if you want to make the claim that the voting was ideologically tilted. The only thing this proves is that he is an asshole and tried to influence the vote.
Edited to clarify my point.
Coming as it does from the nest of alt-right scum and villainy is reason enough to doubt the validity of that screenshot.
But yeah, if it happened that would indeed be a shitty thing.
EDIT: Yeah, he said that he was trolling when he did it (http://archive.is/CMbaP). So probably-not an actual super sneaky attempt to break the Hugos. Transparently silly as offering money for a confidential vote with no strings to make the recipient actually do as you ask for the price of a two rounds at the pub is a very shitty conspiracy.
-
UP, for a guy who loves his scarecrow pics you've missed a huge detail in this guys argument. Here, I'll help.
‘There is no ideological bias in Hugo awards,’
The thing is, the Sad and Rabid puppies detractors never argued that.
They haven't, but I think defenders of the Hugos have.
That's nice dear. Are your thoughts based on anything that can be traced back to the real world?
How about Alastair Reynolds?
This is an attempt by various elements of the American right to regain the centre ground of SF from some perceived shift to the liberal left. It’s predicated on a falsehood … as any analysis of recent Hugo nominations and winners will show: there is no demonstrable bias from within the field against writers of faith, or those who have right-leaning politics. And yet, the Puppies keep recounting the same doctrinal narrative, with a seemingly endless appetite for name-calling.
UP can you point to an award that was given out where it can be objectively proven that it should have gone to someone else?
You're missing the point. The fact that right-wing authors have consistently been the big losers for so long says something's rotten.
Amusing, considering the only author to win both the Hugo and Nebula Awards in consecutive years was described in this thread as "a virulent homophobe who is actively trying to make life harder for me and mine".
It's a relatively recent thing.
If that's the case, then how do you explain the No Award votes?
Voters thinking, "all these books are shit. I don't think any of them deserve an award." That's how.
I think there's another explanation:
(https://i.imgur.com/XTCE0MF.png)
I think it's more likely that people, disillusioned with the open manipulation of the nominations and angry at what they see as a subversion of the democratic process, voted No Award in a protest vote, than that it can all be traced back to a post on Twitter with two (2) likes of some guy offering people money to vote a certain way.
Except that this "open manipulation" had been done by left-wing authors beforehand. John Scalzi admitted as much:
But it’s also not entirely honest to say that it’s not been done before, either. Lots of people suggest or at least remind people of their own works for consideration (I do the latter); lots of people suggest or at least remind people of the works of others for consideration. Just this year I suggested Abagail Nussbaum for Fan Writer; there she is on the ballot. Was my recommendation causative? Maybe, maybe not (I suspect not — she’s built a reputation over a number of years), but the point is I made the recommendation.
Not to mention the fact that the sad puppies' 2015 nomination slate included left-wing authors like Anne Bellet, Kary English, and Rajnar Vajra.
-
UP, the puppies claimed prior to their campaign that there was a clique of individuals that were consistently voting in progressive works.
Pointing to people organising in response to the puppies campaign does not in fact establish that said clique existed to begin with or that it's will was dominating the Hugos.
Yes, Reynolds is a Science Fiction author. Glad we've established something solid.
-
Except that this "open manipulation" had been done by left-wing authors beforehand. John Scalzi admitted as much:
But it’s also not entirely honest to say that it’s not been done before, either. Lots of people suggest or at least remind people of their own works for consideration (I do the latter); lots of people suggest or at least remind people of the works of others for consideration. Just this year I suggested Abagail Nussbaum for Fan Writer; there she is on the ballot. Was my recommendation causative? Maybe, maybe not (I suspect not — she’s built a reputation over a number of years), but the point is I made the recommendation.
Okay, so maybe the voters protested against what they perceived as making the vote political. I haven't followed the issue enough to know the particulars. I am just trying to say that the "No Award" votes don't prove what you say they prove.
Not to mention the fact that the sad puppies' 2015 nomination slate included left-wing authors like Anne Bellet, Kary English, and Rajnar Vajra.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Are you trying to claim that sad puppies did not have a political agenda?
-
So, having failed to establish that the puppies rose in opposition to anything substantial at all or that the "no award" votes in response to the Sad and Rabid Puppies slates establish some sort of post-facto evidence of the secret cabal the Sad and Rabid Puppies were established to oppose or that said secret cabal bends the Hugos to it's collective will UP quits the field having thoroughly botched his attempt to create suspicion in the minds of anyone on this board that the potboiler Puppy fantasies of super secret lefty Hugo cabals are true.
And what did he bring to the table? An article that sought to knock down it's own strawman with the power of math that didn't even do that properly and a tweet by one of his online mobs hated unpersons that was probably made in jest who wouldn't have had a substantial impact on the Hugos even if the author were 100% sincere, because there's no way of controlling how they vote once they run away with your price of a case of beer given in exchange for their vote.
Just another day for the diamond-dense, pig-iron stubborn defender of the status quo.
Not to worry, tomorrow there'll be another alt-right freakout, some more unread links to unreliable sources and splashpics that increase the page size to the fourth power that will still do his cause more harm than good when all's said and done.
-
Except that this "open manipulation" had been done by left-wing authors beforehand. John Scalzi admitted as much:
But it’s also not entirely honest to say that it’s not been done before, either. Lots of people suggest or at least remind people of their own works for consideration (I do the latter); lots of people suggest or at least remind people of the works of others for consideration. Just this year I suggested Abagail Nussbaum for Fan Writer; there she is on the ballot. Was my recommendation causative? Maybe, maybe not (I suspect not — she’s built a reputation over a number of years), but the point is I made the recommendation.
Okay, so maybe the voters protested against what they perceived as making the vote political. I haven't followed the issue enough to know the particulars. I am just trying to say that the "No Award" votes don't prove what you say they prove.
That's possible, but I don't think that's it, because the sad puppy nominations weren't as political as many seem to believe.
Not to mention the fact that the sad puppies' 2015 nomination slate included left-wing authors like Anne Bellet, Kary English, and Rajnar Vajra.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Are you trying to claim that sad puppies did not have a political agenda?
No, what I'm saying is that there is no right-wing conspiracy to take over the Hugos, at least not on behalf of the sad puppies.
As for your requests for evidence that this happened before, Correia claims that he was subjected to whispering campaigns before the puppies existed. I'll try to find evidence of that.
-
Good luck with that.
And I'll buy that it's not a "conspiracy" given the etymology of the latin root word is "breath together" which implies whispering. The Sad and Rabid Puppies announced their intention to band together to make SF safe from imaginary leftists by blaring their paranoia through every Marshal amp and foghorn they could lay their paws on.
-
Sad Puppies? Not political? Because apparently their entire purpose being to counter a perceived liberal bias in the Hugos is somehow not political now.
-
Sad Puppies? Not political? Because apparently their entire purpose being to counter a perceived liberal bias in the Hugos is somehow not political now.
I didn't say they weren't political, just that they weren't as political as is commonly claimed.
-
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
-
Sad Puppies? Not political? Because apparently their entire purpose being to counter a perceived liberal bias in the Hugos is somehow not political now.
I didn't say they weren't political, just that they weren't as political as is commonly claimed.
As claimed by who. Is your yardstick "being political" or is "being political in a specific way" because if it is it behooves you to tell us what that means.
-
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
Particularly considering that they're a group of supposed authors. Perhaps an indication of why they fail to get nominated is reflected in the fact they couldn't even come up with a self respecting moniker.
-
Sad Puppies? Not political? Because apparently their entire purpose being to counter a perceived liberal bias in the Hugos is somehow not political now.
I didn't say they weren't political, just that they weren't as political as is commonly claimed.
As claimed by who. Is your yardstick "being political" or is "being political in a specific way" because if it is it behooves you to tell us what that means.
What I mean is that they nominated several left-wing authors.
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
It's a tongue-in-cheek reference to those Sarah McLachlan commercials.
-
Sad Puppies? Not political? Because apparently their entire purpose being to counter a perceived liberal bias in the Hugos is somehow not political now.
I didn't say they weren't political, just that they weren't as political as is commonly claimed.
As claimed by who. Is your yardstick "being political" or is "being political in a specific way" because if it is it behooves you to tell us what that means.
What I mean is that they nominated several left-wing authors.
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
It's a tongue-in-cheek reference to those Sarah McLachlan commercials.
So you are claiming that a campaign to counter an alleged liberal conspiracy gets partially depoliticised because they voted for some authors that could be called left wing. How does this act partially depoliticise the Sad Puppies? What's the mechanism at work here?
-
No, what I'm saying is that there is no right-wing conspiracy to take over the Hugos, at least not on behalf of the sad puppies.
As for your requests for evidence that this happened before, Correia claims that he was subjected to whispering campaigns before the puppies existed. I'll try to find evidence of that.
But the two Puppy groups have openly admitted that they are right wing groups that are trying to take over the Hugos. That is a thing that they have specifically said. They claimed that it is an counter attack against the conspiracy by the leftists who don't vote for books that have big titted babes and manly men with ray guns on the cover, but they have never denied that their movement is political and aiming to take over the Hugo awards.
-
Sad Puppies? Not political? Because apparently their entire purpose being to counter a perceived liberal bias in the Hugos is somehow not political now.
I didn't say they weren't political, just that they weren't as political as is commonly claimed.
As claimed by who. Is your yardstick "being political" or is "being political in a specific way" because if it is it behooves you to tell us what that means.
What I mean is that they nominated several left-wing authors.
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
It's a tongue-in-cheek reference to those Sarah McLachlan commercials.
So you are claiming that a campaign to counter an alleged liberal conspiracy gets partially depoliticised because they voted for some authors that could be called left wing. How does this act partially depoliticise the Sad Puppies? What's the mechanism at work here?
Because it demonstrates that they're not biased against leftist authors, at least not to the degree that they claim WorldCon is biased against them.
No, what I'm saying is that there is no right-wing conspiracy to take over the Hugos, at least not on behalf of the sad puppies.
As for your requests for evidence that this happened before, Correia claims that he was subjected to whispering campaigns before the puppies existed. I'll try to find evidence of that.
But the two Puppy groups have openly admitted that they are right wing groups that are trying to take over the Hugos. That is a thing that they have specifically said. They claimed that it is an counter attack against the conspiracy by the leftists who don't vote for books that have big titted babes and manly men with ray guns on the cover, but they have never denied that their movement is political and aiming to take over the Hugo awards.
I think you're conflating the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies. The former are more interested in proving biases.
-
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
Particularly considering that they're a group of supposed authors. Perhaps an indication of why they fail to get nominated is reflected in the fact they couldn't even come up with a self respecting moniker.
Christ, I'm just a fanfic author, and I thought that one up off the top of my head. If supposed "proper" authors can't do that...well, I guess that means good things for me if I ever write some original fiction I want published.
-
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
Particularly considering that they're a group of supposed authors. Perhaps an indication of why they fail to get nominated is reflected in the fact they couldn't even come up with a self respecting moniker.
Christ, I'm just a fanfic author, and I thought that one up off the top of my head. If supposed "proper" authors can't do that...well, I guess that means good things for me if I ever write some original fiction I want published.
Like I said, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to those Sarah McLachlan commercials.
-
That doesn't make it not a shit name.
-
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
Particularly considering that they're a group of supposed authors. Perhaps an indication of why they fail to get nominated is reflected in the fact they couldn't even come up with a self respecting moniker.
Christ, I'm just a fanfic author, and I thought that one up off the top of my head. If supposed "proper" authors can't do that...well, I guess that means good things for me if I ever write some original fiction I want published.
Like I said, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to those Sarah McLachlan commercials.
...And a group of supposed writers thought that the best they can do is imitate a commercial? Welp, this is about as much evidence for their talents and why they had poor luck at winning as anything UP has provided for the supposed conspiracies or lack of bias from the Puppies.
-
I just want to comment on how utterly ridiculous these people's chosen moniker is. Like, how out-of-touch do you have to be to call yourself and members of your movement "puppies?" Couldn't have thought of something a bit more, I dunno, adult-sounding? Like "The Coalition for Bias Elimination in the Hugos," or "Hugo Bias Eliminators" for short? Is it so hard for people to think up grownup names for their little clubs?
Particularly considering that they're a group of supposed authors. Perhaps an indication of why they fail to get nominated is reflected in the fact they couldn't even come up with a self respecting moniker.
Christ, I'm just a fanfic author, and I thought that one up off the top of my head. If supposed "proper" authors can't do that...well, I guess that means good things for me if I ever write some original fiction I want published.
Like I said, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to those Sarah McLachlan commercials.
...And a group of supposed writers thought that the best they can do is imitate a commercial? Welp, this is about as much evidence for their talents and why they had poor luck at winning as anything UP has provided for the supposed conspiracies or lack of bias from the Puppies.
Have you actually read their work?
-
Read who's work?
-
Read who's work?
The people you're talking about.
-
Read who's work?
The people you're talking about.
I like reading. Reading is fun. But there is currently more published books in English than can possibly be read in one lifetime. So quite literally, life is too short.
-
Read who's work?
The people you're talking about.
How does reading their work relate to the current topic?
-
Read who's work?
The people you're talking about.
How does reading their work relate to the current topic?
Well, Correia claimed that some of the people against him admitted to having never read his work.
-
Well, I'm getting bored of this Socratic method and it doesn't seem to help at all, it just frustrates people and makes debating harder, so I am going to give you an actual answer (hint: YOU COULD TRY THIS TOO SOMETIME.)
I have not read Correia's books but I find that this does not in any way detract from my arguments. You see, I have never voted in the Hugo awards and therefore I don't think that I actually need to read all the nomimees. If I was planning to go to the Hugos and vote I might as well read up on recent books so that I could actually say which of them I like the most (Which is not the same as which is the best one. Seeing as this would merely be fan favourites vote rather than an actual competetion with judges who look at things from a neutral point of view.) but as I'm not going in the foreseeable future I don't have to read every damn scifi-book that comes out this year.
Meanwhile, my beef with the Puppies is their politization of the awards and even if I had read all their books and loved them I would still hate this foul play.
See? Actual answer that does not pretend that I have no memory beyond the last 5 seconds.
-
Hey, look. At the same time that Paragon is online, we have 5 guests viewing this thread. What are the odds?
-
Hey, look. At the same time that Paragon is online, we have 5 guests viewing this thread. What are the odds?
Five guests whose sessions all started within seconds of each other. It's a remarkable level of coordination for mere humans.
-
I think they're giving him his posts.
Likewise, I think they're similarly supplying him his links. Hence why he is always so clueless about them.
-
Far be it from me to downplay a conspiracy but do you think it might be related to this being the most active recent topic?
-
Far be it from me to downplay a conspiracy but do you think it might be related to this being the most active recent topic?
It could be innocuous, you never know with the internet. But this is like the fifth thread that people have noticed the phenomenon, and it gives credence to the legion theory (which would also explain why he can never seem to read his links).
-
Well he's never going to address the point and I can't see how it can be checked
-
Far be it from me to downplay a conspiracy but do you think it might be related to this being the most active recent topic?
It could be innocuous, you never know with the internet. But this is like the fifth thread that people have noticed the phenomenon, and it gives credence to the legion theory (which would also explain why he can never seem to read his links).
I only hope it's not true because it would be so tragic.
-
I don't think he is "legion" per say, especially since he's been an active poster long before that thing happened, but I do think it is possible that he has advisors. Really, really shitty advisors.
And if he does have advisors, I'm going to say this:
I'm calling you out. If you're so sure of yourselves here, why do you feel the need to make someone sockpuppet your horseshit? Can you not argue for yourselves?
-
As I said tragic, because if this is a group effort then that's beyond god awful.
Really, five of you banged your heads together and you came up with math proves strawman + Arthur Chu shitposts? FFS!
Really I'm hoping UP is acting alone because one human being botching an argument that badly is just slightly more forgivable than a committee doing so.
-
As I said tragic, because if this is a group effort then that's beyond god awful.
Really, five of you banged your heads together and you came up with math proves strawman + Arthur Chu shitposts? FFS!
Really I'm hoping UP is acting alone because one human being botching an argument that badly is just slightly more forgivable than a committee doing so.
Nah. I've long since thought that the total intelligence of a committee is like the total resistance of resistors in parallel.
-
Only probably with your theory. Flame and Burn is a locked forum. You have to be registered to see the forum.
Ironbite-pretty hard to be legion if most of you can't see the forum.
-
I guess he could copy/paste F&B thread posts in a chat window with them. Oops! Did he just get a clue from me? Sorry!
-
I guess he could copy/paste F&B thread posts in a chat window with them. Oops! Did he just get a clue from me? Sorry!
It all begs the question. Why bother?
Having failed to.win the board over to TheGreatEthicsQuestOfOurTime (tm) is the Internet Hate Machine trying to bore us to death?
Or is that just Ultie?
-
See at this point I'd give up and move on to newer pastures but not the Legion. They're bound and determined to convert us all to their side. Why I still have no clue.
Ironbite-I mean there's the GOP levels of ignoring reality and then there is this group.
-
What's this? An update on the Hugo Awards? And it's about prolfic erotica writer Chuck Tingle fucking with the Puppies? Well hot dang Ironbite, lay it on us! (http://boingboing.net/2016/05/06/weird-porn-author-who-was-drag.html)
For the second year in a row, a bunch of disgruntled "conservative" sf readers and writers are attempting to destroy science fiction's Hugo Awards by nominating slates of works that are, variously: rabid racist tracts; works by their ideological opponents; tepid military sf; works by bystanders; and weird porn by Chuck Tingle, a master of the form, who has nothing to do with any of this.
Until now. When Tingle -- who publishes "bizarre niche erotica" in great volume -- discovered that his book Space Raptor Butt Invasion had been promoted to the Hugo ballot by spoilers hoping to discredit the award, he sprang into action. He created a new title, especially aimed at the "Puppies" (the two groups who want to kill the Hugos call themselves "Rabid Puppies" and "Sad Puppies" for fantastically tedious reasons you can look up for yourself if you care to): "Slammed In The Butt By My Hugo Award Nomination."
Then Tingle took to Twitter, writing an amazing series of GIF-illustrated tweets, mocking Vox Day, avowed white supremacist and leader of the "Rabid Puppies."
The crowning glory of Tingle's campaign, though, was his announcement that his Hugo Award, should he win it, would be accepted by Zoe Quinn, the reigning bogeywoman of the Gamergate/neoreactionary right. In other words: every time a "Puppy" casts a vote for Tingle's work, they cast a vote for giving Zoe Quinn a podium from which to address the entire World Science Fiction Convention about the importance of diversity and representation in fiction.
TL;DR: Chuck Tingle finds out he's been nominated for a Hugo Award by fucktards, immediately shits out a story to commemorate said nomination, trolls Vox Day because why not and sends Zoe Quinn to pick up his award and give a speech if he wins.
Ironbite-god you people are stupid.
-
TL;DR: Chuck Tingle finds out he's been nominated for a Hugo Award by fucktards, immediately shits out a story to commemorate said nomination, trolls Vox Day because why not and sends Zoe Quinn to pick up his award and give a speech if he wins.
Ironbite-god you people are stupid.
It'll be really funny if this leads to people voting for Tingle just so that Quinn will give her speech.
-
It's so delicious, I think it has a really good chance to happen XD!
-
Btw when I said "you people" i mean the Puppies.
Ironbite-you guys aren't stupid.
-
It would make the Puppies as hard as if they had read Tingle's whole bibliography in one sitting: in their minds it would prove that the voters are a liberal hive mind.
-
Lets hear Ultie's Rage about THAT.
It should be spectacular.
I mean, here's his least favorite person ever, and she'll get a whole podium to herself to tell a scifi convention - with some rabid idiots in the area most likely - about the importance of diversity.
Vox Day's head will explode like Valack's after Lydia got done with him./reference nobody gets/
-
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Dx9JZB0t0Ao/hqdefault.jpg)
Tingle may or may not know this, but he's playing right into Vox Day's hands. There are two possible outcomes: either they No Award Tingle's book and snub one of their sacred cows, or they vote for his deliberately absurd porno and make themselves look ridiculous.
-
"Slammed in the butt by the consequences of my misogynistic award-mongering"
-
I say award the ridiculous porn - nobody should be concerned with how Vox "I get hard beating down women" Day views them.
And it seems you are definitely showing friendliness to a man who said Lincoln should have been assassinated and that one person arguing against him was a half savage.
-
I say award the ridiculous porn - nobody should be concerned with how Vox "I get hard beating down women" Day views them.
And it seems you are definitely showing friendliness to a man who said Lincoln should have been assassinated and that one person arguing against him was a half savage.
Oh please, I despise Vox.
-
I say award the ridiculous porn - nobody should be concerned with how Vox "I get hard beating down women" Day views them.
And it seems you are definitely showing friendliness to a man who said Lincoln should have been assassinated and that one person arguing against him was a half savage.
Oh please, I despise Vox.
Were I to take you at your word, you stand so close to Vox Day that you shouldn't be surprised when you get painted with the same brush.
-
How is Chuck Tingle's bizarre gay porn one of anyone's 'sacred cows'?
I saw this article in the guardian and it looked good. Comments are interesting too: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/27/george-rr-martin-rabid-puppies-are-big-winners-in-hugo-shortlists (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/27/george-rr-martin-rabid-puppies-are-big-winners-in-hugo-shortlists)
Especially the commentator called ReallyNotThough