So, I'm not into SF enough to vote for/read any current year's Hugos, though I have used the list to find things to read (i.e. if A Deepness in the Sky beat out Cryptonomicon, A Civil Campaign and Harry Potter 3, then it must be a really good book).
It seems that this year a voting bloc was formed due to dissatisfaction with recent previous winners/nominees winning because authors or characters belonged to some sort of women/minorities, and they felt that the identities of the characters/authors and not the quality of the stories drove the victory. This year, the bloc had a list of what they nominated (largely mil-sf), and the Hugo ballot largely reflects it.
Like I said, I am not familiar with any of the recent books and nominees, so I don't know if the books that won in previous years were much of a stretch, or it's just about the way some get upset when commercial enterprises and government officials say Happy Holidays and think they are being oppressed or something. I'm also not well-versed in the Sad Puppies bloc to know if they have any taste in their book selections.
Many SF authors have asked people to be "No vote" on the ballot in protest, which if it wins, the awards began.
It's also all people can talk about. So, on the Bujold mailing list, there's a new book announced due to be published in about 11 months from now (LMB has insisted she was writing *nothing* for the past few years), and someone posted a *whopper* of a spoiler (allegedly attended a read of Ch. 1), and the reaction is what Sad Puppies would think. The spoiler is, um, a game-changer, though Bujold has hinted at it in drabbles throughout the series.
So, clearly very controversial. Thoughts? Some context about the content of the recent Hugo books would be appreciated.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think "we think people are voting the same way according to shared ideology, therefore we we should vote in lockstep so they don't get away with that" is one of the dumbest positions possible.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
The novel list is about as expected but everything else is dominated by a bloc of hardline religious conservatives, misogynists and homophobes. Sad indeed.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I always hate issues like this, because they're invariably insular enough that by the time I hear about them, even the "description" articles are so full of contextual rhetoric and unqualified references to various events and players that I have a difficult time even figuring out what *happened*.
In this case, I've got a fairly decent idea, and it seems incredibly stupid and not something I want to involve myself in. I've seen the White Male Victim Complex played out in countless ways since I was a little kid, and it's a battle I've decided as of late to try and distance myself from as much as possible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait 'em out and pick battles from time to time seems to be the only thing that works in the long run for some things.
But even in cases where I want to sympathize with the White Male Victim card, which is sometimes fairly played, I usually can't let go of my sense of history enough to avoid thinking, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not have any unfair racial, religious, or gender collaboration and discrimination, guys! Now is when we're really, really sensitive to the unfairness of that after centuries or even millenia of such a lopsided game if you were on the other team you were hardly human!"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So I guess to boil it down, a, uhm, pay-to-play anglosphere-dominated awards contest for sci-fi books gets overwhelmed by sad straight white men who are super angry at a possible erosion of what they deem to be a sufficient straight white man representation.
Let's not sell them so short so quick! Let us take a look at who they are valiantly bolstering up to fight back against the tide of political correctness
quote:I will point out that if you look at the Hugo Awards’ slate for this year you’ll see a record-breaking six nominations for John C. Wright, including three out of five of the best novella nominations being stories written by Wright.
Wright, a man so essential to the state of science fiction in 2015 that he doesn’t have a single bestseller, he’s signed with a micro-publisher based in Finland with a total of eight authors on its roster, and I’m the only person I know in real life who’s heard of him. Mainly because I hate-follow his incredible rants about how everything from the Syfy Network to “The Legend of Korra” is too gay for him to tolerate.
jesus christ
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't deny my bias is such that I am instinctively happy to disagree with anyone who supports someone who would openly write something like that (specifically, the LoK link). So that's out there, and it's fair to view my opinion through that lens.
That said, man, I think there might be some value in criticizing people who have folks like that so visibly, publicly in their ranks and don't reject them themselves. I'm fine with a conservative Christian not spending a few minutes each day denouncing Fred Phelps, or a liberal communist not denouncing Stalin. A little less so if they've never said anything critical on the subject, and still less if Fred or Stalin were around regularly kicking up controversy and didn't get repudiated at all. Just some frigging boilerplate, even, you don't have to dwell on how sorry you are this fringe scumbag exists, because you shouldn't be. Or rather you *are* sorry they exist, but not because it's any fault of yours.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I did not know *the* Arthur Chu was a Salon columnist.
John C. Wright sounds a bit obscure, and a little crazy.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: i.e. if A Deepness in the Sky beat out Cryptonomicon, A Civil Campaign and Harry Potter 3, then it must be a really good book
I'm ignoring all the depressing crazy and focusing on this. Vinge is one of my favorite authors, and yes, it's definitely worth reading. But IMO read A Fire Upon the Deep first. Even though A Deepness in the Sky is chronologically first, it was a prequel written later. (Incidentally A Fire Upon the Deep is also my third favorite book, after Anathem and The Worthing Saga).
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
You are about three years too late for that advice, sorry. Read Deepness in the Sky and not Fire.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think there is something genuinely unfortunate that these Sad Puppies people are reacting against, namely a poisonous strand of social justice types who have a lot of influence in SF fandom. (If you want to know how bad it can get, read this.)
But the really unfortunate thing is what a bunch of no-talent psycho wingnuts the Sad Puppies authors are. The idea that anybody could nominate these authors for a Hugo with a straight face is laughable. It's like nominating Dan Brown for a Pulitzer.
John C. Wright isn't actually that bad--I liked his Golden Age trilogy, although it was super preachy libertarian propaganda. But he's a pretty bad short fiction writer from what I've read, so I can't imagine these three short works of his are much good.
It's quite unfortunate-- the Sci Phi Journal, a magazine of science fiction and philosophy which I was super excited about when I first learned of its existence--is affiliated with these SP crazies. I sold them a story a little while ago, before I knew the deal, and then I got paranoid and made sure to include an author bio that made it clear I was a left-winger. Hopefully just having my byline there won't get me black-listed by my fellow left-wingers.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The "good news" is that I doubt many mainstream SF fans will read SPJ!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: It’s been a bit of a cluster**** since and has raised a bevy of new questions, mainly on what an award ceremony can mean if it’s so easily manipulated by two dudes and their Wordpress accounts, for better or worse.
quote:Ultimately, there’s only one sad, lonely question to ask at the end of all this: what can a prestigious award ceremony mean if it can be dominated this easily by so few voices? This situation also alludes to the strong possibility that the voters have stopped reading the works they’re voting for and are following the suggestions of the slate solely due to political ideology. Correia and Torgersen’s selection for “Best Graphic Story” selection (and it should be telling that there’s only one) is for Carter Reid’s The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate. This raises the question: what the **** is The Zombie Nation Book #2: Reduce Reuse Reanimate? The endorsement follows Correia’s mission to prop books that would otherwise be underexposed. Zombie Nation appears to be a collection of webcomics that hasn’t warranted one review on Amazon. Are we to assume that every reader of Correia’s website bought and read this book? They may have, and it might deserve this dark horse acclaim. Or the voters might have blindly followed the list, and we can all wonder why The Wicked + The Divine missed out on a nomination because of an obscure zombie webcomic.
i think it's telling that this is literally the only place i'm on on the entire internet where i hear about this, or the hugo awards, at all
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
For one thing, it's funny that the Hugos are considered the more "major" awards. The Nebulas are the ones that actually have a decent selection procedure which is less susceptible to gamesmanship.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I've heard about this whole thing on another rather unknown blog.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I think there is something genuinely unfortunate that these Sad Puppies people are reacting against, namely a poisonous strand of social justice types who have a lot of influence in SF fandom. (If you want to know how bad it can get, read this.)
But the really unfortunate thing is what a bunch of no-talent psycho wingnuts the Sad Puppies authors are. The idea that anybody could nominate these authors for a Hugo with a straight face is laughable. It's like nominating Dan Brown for a Pulitzer.
John C. Wright isn't actually that bad--I liked his Golden Age trilogy, although it was super preachy libertarian propaganda. But he's a pretty bad short fiction writer from what I've read, so I can't imagine these three short works of his are much good.
It's quite unfortunate-- the Sci Phi Journal, a magazine of science fiction and philosophy which I was super excited about when I first learned of its existence--is affiliated with these SP crazies. I sold them a story a little while ago, before I knew the deal, and then I got paranoid and made sure to include an author bio that made it clear I was a left-winger. Hopefully just having my byline there won't get me black-listed by my fellow left-wingers.
What I question is just how much influence these toxic social justice types actually have. I've acknowledged my bias already, so I'll skip that, but the thing that aggravates me the most isn't the wingnuts who get signed on in pursuit of defeating the toxic social justice warriors, it's not the toxic social warriors themselves, rather it's the larger body of people who seem* ready to react as though suddenly now that there's an actual contest over who should win (by default, a white male over anyone else) a given award, that means that suddenly due to the rule of two sides, both are just as problematic and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I'm imagining some alien observer of American culture, they've got those great big grey alien heads stuffed full of brains so they're tapped in to American culture on all its levels-the written word, movies, television, radio, music, art, food, a dozen other things I can't even think of right now. Predictably in a country that has until recently been overwhelmingly white, the culture has been as well, almost across the board.
But then a cloud appears. An award whose process of voting is actually pretty absurd, an award that has shared the same bias as the rest of the culture (for understandable reasons)...suddenly minorities and women start to get some wins. *Record scratch!* Outrage! Why these people are engaging in unfair collusion to see to it that their candidates win!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What I question is just how much influence these toxic social justice types actually have.
K. Tempest Bradford is an example of a toxic social justice type who seems fairly influential in fandom. She was a supporter of that nasty troll Requires Hate (from the link I posted earlier). I think this page from her site gives a good sense of her influence: http://tempest.fluidartist.com/non-fiction/
Indeed, Requires Hate herself was pretty influential!
In general, you should read that Laura Mixon blog post I linked to before prejudging that SF social justice crazies are a bunch of paper tigers or figments of someone's imagination.
quote:I've acknowledged my bias already, so I'll skip that, but the thing that aggravates me the most isn't the wingnuts who get signed on in pursuit of defeating the toxic social justice warriors, it's not the toxic social warriors themselves, rather it's the larger body of people who seem* ready to react as though suddenly now that there's an actual contest over who should win (by default, a white male over anyone else) a given award, that means that suddenly due to the rule of two sides, both are just as problematic and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I've thought that the wingnut SF social justice people were problematic for years, long before this Sad Puppies stuff even existed. Which is to say, it's not the existence of "two sides" that led to my low opinion of them.
quote:But then a cloud appears. An award whose process of voting is actually pretty absurd, an award that has shared the same bias as the rest of the culture (for understandable reasons)...suddenly minorities and women start to get some wins.
Let's be fair to the SP people (they do suck, but let's try and understand them). They don't have a problem with women and minorities winning awards. They have a problem with left-wing writers winning awards.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer,
I don't question that SJW types have influence. I was specifically referencing them in light of the 'group' they're opposing, a group that until very recently was simply put so successful it was just the default position.
quote:I've thought that the wingnut SF social justice people were problematic for years, long before this Sad Puppies stuff even existed. Which is to say, it's not the existence of "two sides" that led to my low opinion of them.
Yeah, sure, except it's a case of the fringe wingnuts vs. the gradually-less-but-still-overwhelming-monolith-that-is-supported-generally-without-even-considering-there-is-a-contest. My question is 'how problematic are they'? Is there basis for making a decision good? Well, usually not, that's true. Are they the only ones in the game who make choices while consciously or unconsciously vetting their choice on a racial or gender basis?
Well, way a hell less usually not.
As for what their problem is, well-they don't tend to object to left-wing writers winning awards because they inject socialism into their stories, do they? Or a safety net for the poor? Prison reform? No, it's pretty-much-always an objection on the basis of views expressed in writing about women and minorities and LGBT people.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I don't question that SJW types have influence. I was specifically referencing them in light of the 'group' they're opposing, a group that until very recently was simply put so successful it was just the default position.
Again, I think you're misidentifying the group the SP people represent. They don't represent white men, they represent right-wingers. And right-wingers have been outsiders in SF since the '60s. I don't think there's anything wrong with them being outsiders. I'm glad to be a part of communities where right-wing people feel a bit unwelcome. But when they feel unwelcome, that's not just their perception. They really are not mainstream and they haven't been for a long time.
quote:As for what their problem is, well-they don't tend to object to left-wing writers winning awards because they inject socialism into their stories, do they? Or a safety net for the poor? Prison reform? No, it's pretty-much-always an objection on the basis of views expressed in writing about women and minorities and LGBT people.
Well, it is also true that the left-wing writers who win and are nominated for awards lately are not writing about socialism or prison reform. They're writing about women and minorities. The only example of an award-nominated left-wing political novel focusing on economic liberalism that I can think of in recent years is Robinson's 2312, and it also had a bunch of stuff about gender in it. On the other hand there have been a host of works by Ann Leckie, Saladin Ahmed, Lavie Tidhar, et al exploring identity issues. Identity just happens to be the hot battleground issue for the left in the present political climate.
So if you were going to get mad about the left-wing slant of SF awards, would you get mad about the one socialist story or the dozens of race-and-gender stories?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Yeah, sure, except it's a case of the fringe wingnuts vs. the gradually-less-but-still-overwhelming-monolith-that-is-supported-generally-without-even-considering-there-is-a-contest. My question is 'how problematic are they'? Is there basis for making a decision good? Well, usually not, that's true. Are they the only ones in the game who make choices while consciously or unconsciously vetting their choice on a racial or gender basis?
No, but they are the ones taking part in the most vicious online attacks and lynch mobs against specific authors. Look up what happened to Tricia Sullivan's novel Shadowboxer, for example. It's a different way of being problematic than the SP people, but I would say it's quite problematic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Again, I think you're misidentifying the group the SP people represent. They don't represent white men, they represent right-wingers. And right-wingers have been outsiders in SF since the '60s. I don't think there's anything wrong with them being outsiders. I'm glad to be a part of communities where right-wing people feel a bit unwelcome. But when they feel unwelcome, that's not just their perception. They really are not mainstream and they haven't been for a long time.
There are lots of ways to be right-wing, just as one could be called a left-winger if they were a socialist or if they believed in keeping prayer out of schools.
quote:Well, it is also true that the left-wing writers who win and are nominated for awards lately are not writing about socialism or prison reform. They're writing about women and minorities. The only example of an award-nominated left-wing political novel focusing on economic liberalism that I can think of in recent years is Robinson's 2312, and it also had a bunch of stuff about gender in it. On the other hand there have been a host of works by Ann Leckie, Saladin Ahmed, Lavie Tidhar, et al exploring identity issues. Identity just happens to be the hot battleground issue for the left in the present political climate.
So if you were going to get mad about the left-wing slant of SF awards, would you get mad about the one socialist story or the dozens of race-and-gender stories?
I would wonder if maybe this slew of awards just might have something to do with such stories not even having been possible to publish and sell until very recently, and question whether the newness of it might have as much to do with the sudden upswell as some insidious left-wing cabal.
As for what they're getting mad about...well. You've certainly landed on the most benign possible reason why people would get mad about leftist authors winning awards. 'Left-wing' is just an umbrella in any event. Right-winger angry types don't dislike left-wingers just because they're left wing (or vice versa), it's what they're left-wing *about*. Which in this case is mysteriously having to do with an increased focus* on gender and racial identity.
quote:No, but they are the ones taking part in the most vicious online attacks and lynch mobs against specific authors. Look up what happened to Tricia Sullivan's novel Shadowboxer, for example. It's a different way of being problematic than the SP people, but I would say it's quite problematic.
I just want to clarify here: is it your intention to suggest that SJW types are more active in making vicious online attacks against specific authors than attacks are made in the other direction?
*What's funny about this is that 'race-and-gender stories' are really, really often simply stories that actually address race and gender at all. All it *takes* to be a 'women's story' is if it focuses on women instead of men.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Or if the character is a crudely drawn cartoon that wears a pink dress....
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I would wonder if maybe this slew of awards just might have something to do with such stories not even having been possible to publish and sell until very recently, and question whether the newness of it might have as much to do with the sudden upswell as some insidious left-wing cabal.
I totally agree. And I think the awards and noms for the race-and-gender books have mostly been well-deserved.
quote:As for what they're getting mad about...well. You've certainly landed on the most benign possible reason why people would get mad about leftist authors winning awards
Yes, as a matter of human psychology I think the most benign explanation for why people disagree with me is usually the right one. Truly evil people are very rare.
quote:Right-winger angry types don't dislike left-wingers just because they're left wing (or vice versa), it's what they're left-wing *about*.
I think this is actually the opposite of the truth much of the time. People often form views about specific issues because it's what someone from "their team" is supposed to think. Look at the fact that conservatives weren't upset about Bush's or Reagan's spending, or the fact that liberals aren't upset about Obama's civil liberties abuses. A lot of the time it's about who you see as your political enemy, rather than what issues you disagree on.
quote:I just want to clarify here: is it your intention to suggest that SJW types are more active in making vicious online attacks against specific authors than attacks are made in the other direction?
Yes, that has been my impression the last several years, since the '09 attacks on Elizabeth Bear and Jay Lake kicked off the trend. I'm not aware of any comparable stories of right-wing SF fans mobbing authors online. Although it's possible that my "keep my own house in order" tendency to get annoyed with other leftists' excesses have led to my missing such stories.
quote:*What's funny about this is that 'race-and-gender stories' are really, really often simply stories that actually address race and gender at all. All it *takes* to be a 'women's story' is if it focuses on women instead of men.
The stories whose awards these guys are objecting to, like Ancillary Justice, are not like that at all. They are in fact message fiction, although I would say most of them are very well-done message fiction that deserves acclaim.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:To clarify some things that shouldn’t matter but apparently do:
I am a socialist, if I have to quantify my political leanings. I’d vote Elizabeth Warren into the presidency if she ran, though she’s still not liberal enough for me (but she’s smart enough, too smart to run probably, hah), if that gives an idea of what I mean here.
I am queer in that I am an out bisexual who has had more female partners than male. (I am married and monogamous with a man but still identify as bi because I don’t think who I ended up in love with should matter).
I have two X chromosomes and a vagina. Also boobs. And tattoos (90 hours and counting!).
My nominated story features a non-white female protagonist. Most of my stories do, actually. I think the world is a very interesting and diverse place, I grew up in a multi-ethnic and diverse family, and I don’t see our future becoming less diverse so I choose to write about a world that has as many different people in it as I can dream up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if the Sad Puppies' goal was pushing right-wing straight male people
The Sad Puppies' goal was pushing friends of Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia, some of whom were right-wing straight males. The Rabid Puppies were about pushing right-wing straight males.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, it's weird, Bellet was on the Rabid Puppies list too! I guess Vox Day just didn't know.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I would be really sad too, by the way, if the official agenda of the Sad Puppies won out and the Hugos became the annual Best Lowbrow Pulp SF Award. The idea of Kevin J Anderson or Jim Butcher winning a Hugo kind of grosses me out.
Although Scalzi won a couple of years back, and he's a lowbrow pulp-writing hack extraordinaire, so maybe that ship has sailed (I almost wrote the typo "that shit has sailed," which would have been appropriate, LOL).
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I think it's worth noting Redshirts was fairly literary in its ambitions. It's essentially meaningless without the greater context of SF, especially Star Trek (TOS). It's really the kind of book I'd expect to win awards in the SF community. Far more so than his Old Man's War stories or other endeavors.
I haven't read any of Anderson's recent stuff and most of it I have was Star Wars (Darksaber *shudders*) but Butcher's Skin Game is a bloody heist story. It's not doing anything interesting at all. He should have gotten Hugo nods for Changes or Ghost Story, which were at least adventurous.
I guess it speaks to what I think should win Hugos: stories that are useful additions to the canon of SFF; whether for craft or innovation or reflection or inspiration. Not generic and not for comfort or nostalgia or politics. It's one book out of thousands, there should be a pretty solid reason why.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Redshirts sounds excessively cute.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I enjoyed Redshirts quite a bit, but "excessively cute" is really the only way to describe it. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
god, i forgot how much of the science fiction community is dominated by sweaty insane conservatives
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:George R R Martin said the Hugo awards have been dealt a mortal blow by right-wing writers after they promoted a list of their selections so successfully that they dominated the shortlist.
The campaign was started by a group calling itself Sad Puppies as they sought to right the wrong, as they saw it, of the political correctness in previous shortlists.
But the similar Rabid Puppies group, led by American author Theodore Beale, had the most success – three of the five contenders in the best novel category and all the best novella, best novelette and best short story contenders were on its slate.
Beale is notorious for his views. Discussing the black Hugo award nominee N K Jemisin, he once wrote that “it is not that I, and others, do not view her as human, (although genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens), it is that we simply do not view her as being fully civilised for the obvious historical reason that she is not”. He also once said that American women “would do well to consider whether their much-cherished gains of the right to vote, work, murder and freely fornicate are worth destroying marriage, children, civilised Western society and little girls”.
One of the writers on the Rabid Puppies’ list, nominated six times, is John C Wright. After the TV show Legend of Korra featured a love story between women, he wrote to the programme’s creators describing them as “disgusting, limp, soulless sacks of filth”.
Beale insisted his campaign was about promoting “excellence in actual science fiction and fantasy”.
So basically we must constantly be reminded that this movement is actually about ethics in science fiction awards nomination
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Don't forget that a number of the nominees from the Rabid Puppies are from Castalia House, a publisher created by Theodore Beale. I would assume that he benefits financially from any increased sales that result from those nominations (and not just the ones he received as editor).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In this case I am more than willing to give Beale the benefit of the doubt and presume for his sake that the financial incentive is purely incidental.
Generously, I can assume his intent is firmly rooted in his lunatic paranoid conservative bigotry and his desire to fight back against the rising tide of nonwhites and females and gays getting any sort of real representation to the detriment of civilization
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It feels to me like they've effectively destroyed the award. Which if that's what they wanted, congrats to them I guess?
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
One bad year doesn't the award is dead. It's been gravely injured but can still recover.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is there any reason to think they won't do the same thing next year?
Seriously, dudes like Beale cannot have escaped social scorn for their views. Other than that, what else is there in response? Mustering a bigger showing in response? On what basis-an explicitly liberal progressive counterbalance?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In this case I am more than willing to give Beale the benefit of the doubt and presume for his sake that the financial incentive is purely incidental.
Generously, I can assume his intent is firmly rooted in his lunatic paranoid conservative bigotry and his desire to fight back against the rising tide of nonwhites and females and gays getting any sort of real representation to the detriment of civilization
That sounds right. Vox Day is a racist and sexist first, a businessman second.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: One bad year doesn't the award is dead. It's been gravely injured but can still recover.
but the whole hugos system is stupid and useless down to the very core and this whole fiasco is just the exterior product produced by that fact.
it would take about two years to even institute the minimum reforms necessary to pull the awards back from the supremely surreal and insane irrelevance that it has earned for itself this year, if even the institution is coherently willing and able to try
until then it's even safer to ignore the hugos this year than it was last year hooray
/
quote:Is there any reason to think they won't do the same thing next year?
nope, especially considering that they have expressly pledged to pull the exact same shit again
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
They may be less successful next year as more fans make an effort to vote. There will certainly be efforts to reduce their prominence on the ballot (hopefully not a counter-slate). The assorted interest groups who make up the Puppies might fracture and dilute their influence, especially when the more egregious noms from the rabid side lose badly. Inshallah, Gamergate will continue to dwindle so next year's puppy slate won't have as many voters.
A year is a long time on the internet, so let's see what happens.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
While reading about all this stuff, I discovered an interesting piece of SF history... one of the rallying points for the Sad Puppies has been the Nebula win and Hugo nomination of this story, which they hate:
I was ready to be all like "those Philistines!" But actually the story is not at all to my taste, and probably shouldn't count as either SF or fantasy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's clearly "speculative fiction," though, even if it's more of a tone poem than a story.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
What's the speculative element? Dinosaurs? The narrator's imagination?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
in comparison know that Wisdom from My Internet, by Michael Z. Williamson is now a hugo award finalist. thanks puppieeeessss!
i will leave the details on this wonderful publication by (literally) "Patriarchy Press" out
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, the SP nominees are, collectively, a sad joke.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What's the speculative element? Dinosaurs? The narrator's imagination?
Yes, precisely. It would be unambiguously a piece of spec-fic, after all, if the narrator were in love with a dinosaur -- if the various "what-ifs" mentioned in the piece were what happened, and not merely what the narrator speculates would happen.
The piece takes away the usual frame of reference for sci-fi -- the idea that the thing being speculated about is being written as if it actually happened -- and puts it back in its place, as if the narrator were actually doing the speculating. (And, of course, the narrator and the narrative are themselves fictional; the actual author's lover was not assaulted, and the author is not imagining how differently that would have gone were her lover a dinosaur. The author, in fact, is happily married to a man.) So it's a married, heterosexual woman imagining what a nerdy lesbian mourning her lover's mugging might be thinking.
If the nerdy lesbian were also an elf, would it be a fantasy story? If her lover were being treated in a space hospital, would it be science fiction? I think it's needlessly reductive to try to nail that down. It's a story, and it's practically tautologically speculative fiction: it's literally first-person speculation about how an unusually sapient dinosaur would be perceived and received in the modern era.
I personally didn't find it all that deep or thought-provoking, but given that it's only a couple pages long I didn't really have time to get tired of the conceit, either; there have been plenty of one-note "explorations" of a given image in spec-fic that have dragged on far longer. (Asimov wrote a whole tedious story that ended with "let there be light," for example, just to get to that line.)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE](Asimov wrote a whole tedious story that ended with "let there be light," for example, just to get to that line.)
Weirdly enough, I read said story for the first time yesterday.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
I was annoyed by the various puppies (not annoyed enough to kick out $40 for a vote). I found a lot of the books and authors I love from the Hugo and Nebula awards, and it's unfortunate to think that the awards will be degraded in value by their nonsense.
Then it occurred to me that The Slow Regard of Silent Things by Patrick Rothfuss was a novella that came out in the last year. If this book is not in the running for the award and three novellas by John C Wright are because of the puppies (maybe it just missed the cutoff date), I'll kick out the $40 next year.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
We also had a Sanderson Novella though that too might have missed the cut-off date. Not sure what the cut-off is. But that's two that bury anything on the list now.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
OK just checked and the Hugos are for works published in the previous calender year. Both Slow Regard and Legion Skin Deep were published at the end of 2014 so both were eligible this year. Also I forgot Sanderson's Sixth of the Dusk which was also eligible.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
I would be ok with Sanderson getting on the ballot twice. Forgot about him as well. His story from Dangerous Women was also among the best things I read last year.
Neither of those guys are complaining, so we have to do it for them.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Also, The Martian. I think it wasn't eligible because of the earlier self-publish date.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The exchange between GURM and Larry Correia sums it up for me: the puppies harbour delusions of persecution.
Which bears a resemblance, no surprise, to the usual pattern at play most times Angry White Male starts to complain about how women and minorities are being too exclusionary: it usually but not always winds up that what is actually at play is a hypersensitivity to actual competition and criticism in some things, born usually from a lack of experience in either.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think Sad Puppies is a huge, insane overreaction, but Correia may not be deluded, exactly. If he's not lying about his treatment during Worldcon and the lead up to it, it sounds like people's behavior toward him was pretty inexcusable. And if he were liberal rather than conservative, he would probably not have been treated that way.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The bigoted mastermind behind Rabid Puppies states his views clearly and calmly:
Much of it is standard loosely-Bell-Curve-inspired scientific racism and loosely-evolution-inspired PUA sexism. Some parts are especially weird and pseudoscientific:
quote:Yes, I am claiming that societies are incapable of moving from full primitivism to full civilization within the time frame that primitive African societies have been in contact with what we consider to be civilization. It is a genetic argument. It takes that long to kill off or otherwise suppress the breeding of the excessively violent and short-time preferenced. African-American men are 500 times more likely to possess a gene variant that is linked to violence and aggression than white American men.
quote:The reason women shouldn’t vote in a representative democracy is they are significantly inclined to vote for whomever they would rather f***. Hence the studies about height and hair being relevant to US presidential politics. That’s why women’s suffrage was pushed by the Communists and why it is the first plank of the Fascist Manifesto.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I started reading that post when it popped up on my reader this morning. I got to Vox's first response and decided he was crazy. I didn't read the rest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I think Sad Puppies is a huge, insane overreaction, but Correia may not be deluded, exactly. If he's not lying about his treatment during Worldcon and the lead up to it, it sounds like people's behavior toward him was pretty inexcusable. And if he were liberal rather than conservative, he would probably not have been treated that way.
I can't speak to Correia's experience precisely because I wasn't there. What I can speak to is that even if every aspect of his account is true-which you must admit, Destineer, is extremely unlikely, human beings being what we are-then it's special why, exactly?
Don't get me wrong: if it is accurate, then the people treating him thusly were schmucks of the highest order and he is right to be outraged. Is that Affirmative Action in sci-to and fantasy writing? And is such an experience so different from that the same people he...reviles is May e too harsh...have in many other contexts themselves?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder why Vox thinks women are more likely to want to **** communists and fascists.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I wonder why Vox thinks women are more likely to want to **** communists and fascists.
Ha, yeah, I was just thinking, does he think commies and Nazis are tall and have great hair or something?
quote:Don't get me wrong: if it is accurate, then the people treating him thusly were schmucks of the highest order and he is right to be outraged. Is that Affirmative Action in sci-to and fantasy writing?
No, certainly not that. It is exclusion of an author from due consideration for an award because of the author's conservative politics, though, which is one of Correia's complaints. (I haven't seen him harp much on "affirmative action," but it's not like I've read his whole corpus on the subject either.)
quote:And is such an experience so different from that the same people he...reviles is May e too harsh...have in many other contexts themselves?
Well, two wrongs don't make a right, you know. Or are you saying that in other, equally prominent SF award contexts, Correia's political opponents would be excluded the way he claims he was?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I wonder why Vox thinks women are more likely to want to **** communists and fascists.
It's the boots. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer,
quote:Ha, yeah, I was just thinking, does he think commies and Nazis are tall and have great hair or something?
I think Tom meant to point up the 'women won't sleep with me, which means they have a ulterior motives' thread of thinking which so often runs through misogyny like Vox's.
quote:No, certainly not that. It is exclusion of an author from due consideration for an award because of the author's conservative politics, though, which is one of Correia's complaints. (I haven't seen him harp much on "affirmative action," but it's not like I've read his whole corpus on the subject either.)
I believe Correia was the one who likened the Hugo Awards to Affirmative Action in recent years, but it may have been another SPer. Anyway, if his account is true-to my mind it's very possible it's partly or maybe even largely true, almost unthinkable that he's giving the straight unvarnished dope-then as you said, Sad Puppies is an enormous overreaction.
quote:Well, two wrongs don't make a right, you know. Or are you saying that in other, equally prominent SF award contexts, Correia's political opponents would be excluded the way he claims he was?
No, though I would be surprised if it were true. What I am pointing out is that his particular demographics-conservative, white, male-have historically and in living memory been very, very active, both actively and passively, in exactly the sort of suppression he complains about now, and gee whiz if he raised a stink about it then, I haven't heard of it.* And to point out the irony.
It doesn't mean that makes it OK, if his account is true. But I think it is some useful context for his outrage and campaigning.
*Which, to be fair, if he had I wouldn't be surprised not to have heard of it. I couldn't have named him before SP.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Why would you be surprised if Correia's story were true? Just because people's memories are fallible?
I actually suspect it's pretty close to the truth. During the previous year of Sad Puppies I read a million and a half comments from liberal people who said they would vote against Correia's nominated book, sight unseen, because you can't separate the art from the artist and Correia is a bigot. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were a bunch of people saying the same thing when he was up for the Campbell.
(I actually haven't seen much evidence of prejudice from what I've read of Correia's blog posts, although he may be a bit homophobic and transphobic and he is certainly in the dark about a lot of systematic oppression.)
quote:What I am pointing out is that his particular demographics-conservative, white, male-have historically and in living memory been very, very active, both actively and passively, in exactly the sort of suppression he complains about now, and gee whiz if he raised a stink about it then, I haven't heard of it.* And to point out the irony.
It takes a rare kind of person to raise a stink about the bad behavior of people you agree with, or even the bad behavior of people who you don't really agree with but are more radical members of your "team." Correia seems even worse about this than most people, as evidence by his largely cooperative relationship with Vox Day.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It's worth saying. If you have a view, or belong to a group, and those things make people who do not know you weary of associating with you, it's worth thinking about.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
conspicuously not associating with people like vox day is as easy as conspicuously not associating with, say, white supremacists who stalk women. he is so far beyond the pale in terms of the open loathesomeness of his views that any fairweather collab already says something.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: conspicuously not associating with people like vox day is as easy as conspicuously not associating with, say, white supremacists who stalk women. he is so far beyond the pale in terms of the open loathesomeness of his views that any fairweather collab already says something.
I agree with you for the most part but it can be easy to get associated with people like that just because you share an unrelated (or only slightly related) viewpoint with them. I don't agree with the Sad or Rabid Puppies but I do have some conservative leanings. So while I do not agree with them in any of their racist, sexist, religious or other craziness, because I am a gun owner and enthusiast there are plenty of people that would be happy to lump me right in with the Vox Days of the world.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
While I can certainly feel your pain with the whole gun owner situation (having people assume you're a crazy-overthrow-the-government gun nut because you own several firearms that you shoot recreationally, and otherwise keep locked up in your safe is never fun), I think this situation would be more analogous to you being a highly active and vocal member of the NRA, and never discussing or repudiating a lot of their more troubling members and aspects.
Your analogy is more like you simply owning and enjoying literature written by some of the Sad Puppy nominees.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: It's worth saying. If you have a view, or belong to a group, and those things make people who do not know you weary of associating with you, it's worth thinking about.
Absolutely. Correia did post something about how he doesn't agree with Day recently, but it's hard to believe he doesn't see how useful it would be to his position if he just said in no uncertain terms that Day is scum.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What I can speak to is that even if every aspect of [Correia's] account is true-which you must admit, Destineer, is extremely unlikely, human beings being what we are-then it's special why, exactly?
Not Destineer, but firstly, I don't admit anything of the sort; why should I? And secondly, have you considered what would happen if someone not somewhat to the right of you politically made such a complaint? Imagine, for a moment, that a woman, or a homosexual, or a disabled person, said that "At such-and-such a con I met with hostility". Would you then
a) Instantly, at 95% confidence, assume that the tale was false? b) Shrug and say "so what"? c) Say that, as a member of <whatever> group, they basically had it coming?
I suspect that you would do nothing of the sort.
I must say I'm finding it rather ironic to see the roles so reversed: A straight-white-whatever says "I was excluded", and the left, of all the possible movements - to a human! - collectively shrugs and says "Yeah, yeah, suck it up." Are you people sure that this is really who you want to be? Does diversity really mean you have to actively exclude people you disagree with, even if diversity is one of the things they disagree about? And having done so, do you really want to take on the most objectionable traits of the behaviours you were complaining about? Do you really want diversity to be just a case of the boot being on the other foot now, and then brag about it? Because that is, honestly, the vibe I'm getting here.
quote: I can't imagine these three short works of his are much good.
You know, one of the complaints of the Puppies is that people were voting against works without reading them, for political reasons. And here you are, saying that hey, this stuff that I haven't read can't be much good. Are you really, really sure there is no justice in their charge?
I have read two of the three nominated Wright short stories; I don't think either of them was his best work. But a man who can produce "Twilight of the Gods" is not to be taken lightly as an author of short fiction.
[ April 18, 2015, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
I must say I'm finding it rather ironic to see the roles so reversed: A straight-white-whatever says "I was excluded", and the left, of all the possible movements - to a human! - collectively shrugs and says "Yeah, yeah, suck it up." Are you people sure that this is really who you want to be? Does diversity really mean you have to actively exclude people you disagree with, even if diversity is one of the things they disagree about? And having done so, do you really want to take on the most objectionable traits of the behaviours you were complaining about? Do you really want diversity to be just a case of the boot being on the other foot now, and then brag about it? Because that is, honestly, the vibe I'm getting here.
I completely agree that work ought to be judged on its merits, but I think you're seeing a symmetry that is not actually there.
First, I don't think diversity has to be an absolute first principle. It obviously can't be, seeing as all of us can think of extremist groups we would be happy to see excluded.
Do the sad puppies qualify as one of those extremist groups? I really don't know. Probably not. Even if they are much milder than a group to be obviously excluded (e.g. the KKK), it is still not the same as excluding left-sympathetic groups like gays or the disabled. The forces that have excluded those "good" groups in the past have been forces of cruelty, humiliation, and violence. The forces that exclude the milder "bad" groups, like the SPs might be, are at worst forces of adolescent silliness.
So yes, if the Tumblr left is excluding you, then a certain measure of sucking it up is in order.
Second, separating the author from the work is not quite as easy as it seems. This isn't about effort, but the fact that to some extent, the author's beliefs will show up in their work.
Take Jim Butcher, the Dresden Files author. He is very tight-lipped about his politics, but Harry Dresden is a pretty conservative guy in his attitudes towards women, and the books themselves aren't going to be winning any diversity awards. But none of that is the problem! The problem is that Butcher is stuck writing stock characters because all he has to draw on is a conservative vision of social life. Harry Dresden's 1960s sexism isn't the failing; it's the Butcher doesn't know how to write a protagonist that isn't a 1960s sexist.
His politics shows up on a literary level. And when that happens, it is fair game for analysis and judgment, which makes it relevant to whether or not it ought to win a literary award.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:Take Jim Butcher, the Dresden Files author. He is very tight-lipped about his politics, but Harry Dresden is a pretty conservative guy in his attitudes towards women, and the books themselves aren't going to be winning any diversity awards. But none of that is the problem! The problem is that Butcher is stuck writing stock characters because all he has to draw on is a conservative vision of social life. Harry Dresden's 1960s sexism isn't the failing; it's the Butcher doesn't know how to write a protagonist that isn't a 1960s sexist.
Don't confuse 'doesn't' with 'can't'. Especially since the protagonist in his other series is not a "1960s sexist". Harry's attitudes towards women are more likely due to the series' genre roots than Butcher's personal politics. While Butcher doesn't always get it right, I don't think it's fair to say he has is a conservative vision of social life.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Take Jim Butcher, the Dresden Files author. He is very tight-lipped about his politics, but Harry Dresden is a pretty conservative guy in his attitudes towards women, and the books themselves aren't going to be winning any diversity awards. But none of that is the problem! The problem is that Butcher is stuck writing stock characters because all he has to draw on is a conservative vision of social life. Harry Dresden's 1960s sexism isn't the failing; it's the Butcher doesn't know how to write a protagonist that isn't a 1960s sexist.
His politics shows up on a literary level. And when that happens, it is fair game for analysis and judgment, which makes it relevant to whether or not it ought to win a literary award.
True, and I would never say that Butcher should get a major award.
On the other hand, there are many people who don't know how to write a non-liberal character convincingly, and they aren't penalized for this when award time rolls around.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:Take Jim Butcher, the Dresden Files author. He is very tight-lipped about his politics, but Harry Dresden is a pretty conservative guy in his attitudes towards women, and the books themselves aren't going to be winning any diversity awards. But none of that is the problem! The problem is that Butcher is stuck writing stock characters because all he has to draw on is a conservative vision of social life. Harry Dresden's 1960s sexism isn't the failing; it's the Butcher doesn't know how to write a protagonist that isn't a 1960s sexist.
Don't confuse 'doesn't' with 'can't'. Especially since the protagonist in his other series is not a "1960s sexist". Harry's attitudes towards women are more likely due to the series' genre roots than Butcher's personal politics. While Butcher doesn't always get it right, I don't think it's fair to say he has is a conservative vision of social life.
Yeah, Harry is a deliberately anachronistic... pastiche? parody? homage?... of a 1940s film noir gumshoe, and that includes the gruff, rough around the edges exterior and the somewhat patronising sexism. ("She had legs that went all the way up...", him trying to act chivalrous to Murphy which she sees as annoying and he sees as hilarious, etc.) The books are written from Harry's POV and his worldview affects how he portrays the people around him.
If you read Butcher's other works or, hell, just get further into the Dresden Files, you'll see this isn't really indicative of the author's beliefs about women. (or if it is, he does a good job of suppressing it)
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Especially since Harry knows he's being sexist. Butcher's pretty consistent about problematizing Harry's attitudes when they rear their ugly head.
Speaking of diversity, I'd be inordinately pleased if Carlos "the Virgin" Ramirez was gay. All the boasting was actually a double fake-out. It'd also help make up for the Toe-mass jokes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: Even if they are much milder than a group to be obviously excluded (e.g. the KKK), it is still not the same as excluding left-sympathetic groups like gays or the disabled. The forces that have excluded those "good" groups in the past have been forces of cruelty, humiliation, and violence.
Allowing that there has been no violence done, exactly what do you call it when someone is told "You and your kind are not welcome here", if not humiliation? And when people then, to every outward appearance, rejoice in the fact of humiliation and laugh about it, that looks rather a lot like cruelty to me, taking joy in the pain of others. For example, consider the Scalzi tweets quoted in this post by Correia. I have got to say that this looks pretty cruel to me, in a way that you would utterly condemn if it were going the other way.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Scalzi seems like a sanctimonious dick from his online behavior, although I may be biased against him because he's such a bad writer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
That said, it really is a different kind of thing to shut out a lifestyle or a race from so much of what's good in life for hundreds of years, as opposed to shutting a political point of view out from a niche market in literature.
Doesn't mean the latter thing is right, but it is artificial to draw a full-on equivalence between the two.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nor did I do so. I drew an equivalence between meeting hostility at a con, and meeting hostility at a con, whether it happens to members of one group or another. Here is the comparison I was making:
quote: Imagine, for a moment, that a woman, or a homosexual, or a disabled person, said that "At such-and-such a con I met with hostility".
I suggest that if such a thing had happened, the left would be up in arms about it. When it happens to a man on the right, then it's "Well, the boot is on the other foot now."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For example, consider the Scalzi tweets quoted in this post by Correia. I have got to say that this looks pretty cruel to me...
Why? Bear in mind that it is in response to accusations of bias and rigged voting and the like; he wasn't just randomly taunting somebody.
(In an unrelated note: it is depressing how completely out of his depth Correia is in that conversation. He's simply not intelligent enough to argue his point effectively, which is a little embarrassing to watch.)
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: Even if they are much milder than a group to be obviously excluded (e.g. the KKK), it is still not the same as excluding left-sympathetic groups like gays or the disabled. The forces that have excluded those "good" groups in the past have been forces of cruelty, humiliation, and violence.
Allowing that there has been no violence done, exactly what do you call it when someone is told "You and your kind are not welcome here", if not humiliation? And when people then, to every outward appearance, rejoice in the fact of humiliation and laugh about it, that looks rather a lot like cruelty to me, taking joy in the pain of others. For example, consider the Scalzi tweets quoted in this post by Correia. I have got to say that this looks pretty cruel to me, in a way that you would utterly condemn if it were going the other way.
You mean this list of tweets?
John Scalzi @scalzi I’m not going to lie. I’m going to be THRILLED to snarkread the whiny “I didn’t want it anyway” nonsense that will squirt forth tomorrow.
Scalzi sounds like a dick, for sure. But do you actually think there is a symmetry between this and the lives of women, gays, and the disabled in the decades before the forerunners of the PC brigade got organized? There really is no symmetry here; saying that adolescent silliness is comparable to the world that conservatives pine for is just plain wrong.
Diversity and tolerance are supposed to be social virtues which protect the weak. They aren't absolute rules, and they can lead to silliness, but they are certainly not rules to be applied symmetrically to everyone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Scalzi sounds like a dick, for sure.
See, I dunno. I think that if you accuse a guy of helping to ensure that people who don't share his political viewpoint don't ever get a specific award, and then promise to rig the voting in a way that prevents him from winning the award while ensuring that your own picks will win, and then fail at that task, he might post something just like this in response to winning despite your efforts to prevent that result. Even without being all that much of a dick.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Nor did I do so. I drew an equivalence between meeting hostility at a con, and meeting hostility at a con, whether it happens to members of one group or another. Here is the comparison I was making:
quote: Imagine, for a moment, that a woman, or a homosexual, or a disabled person, said that "At such-and-such a con I met with hostility".
I suggest that if such a thing had happened, the left would be up in arms about it. When it happens to a man on the right, then it's "Well, the boot is on the other foot now."
That makes sense. In that case I'm pretty close to agreeing with you, although to draw an analogy, I think picking on the kid who everybody else already picks on is a little worse than picking on the kid nobody else picks on.
quote:(In an unrelated note: it is depressing how completely out of his depth Correia is in that conversation. He's simply not intelligent enough to argue his point effectively, which is a little embarrassing to watch.)
Yeah, Correia's not the smartest. He's not an idiot, exactly, but he's pretty blind to relevant nuance on a lot of his points of disagreement with Martin.
On the other hand, I think Martin is a bit blind to the evidence. You really do not get many right-wing authors winning Hugos, and essentially zero works that have right-wing messages anywhere in them. And you also have a bunch of people all over the web saying that they will vote against such works sight unseen (that was true well before the first Sad Puppies). It's really not hard to draw the obvious conclusion from those data points.
quote:See, I dunno. I think that if you accuse a guy of helping to ensure that people who don't share his political viewpoint don't ever get a specific award, and then promise to rig the voting in a way that prevents him from winning the award while ensuring that your own picks will win, and then fail at that task, he might post something just like this in response to winning despite your efforts to prevent that result. Even without being all that much of a dick.
Yeah, my general impression from checking out his blog a few times is that he's a dick, though.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The stories whose awards these guys are objecting to, like Ancillary Justice, are not like that at all. They are in fact message fiction, although I would say most of them are very well-done message fiction that deserves acclaim.
What's the message in Ancillary Justice?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
-Imperialism and class stratification = bad
-The non-reproductive differences between the sexes are culturally conditioned rather than biologically inherent
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
It's true that the problems involved with empire and class stratification play a role in the book. It's also true that the one of the key qualities of the main character results in her viewing gender as irrelevant (I'm intentionally being vague here so as not to spoil anything for those who haven't yet read the book). What is it about the presence of these things in the narrative that makes the book into "message fiction"?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Different people have different standards for how message-heavy something has to be to count as message fiction. To me, AJ counts, but it's probably not the best example for me to use because it's not very directly focused on its messages. Something like Windup Girl or 2312 (or Starship Troopers or The Golden Age) would be a clearer case.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Maybe I should back up and ask how you're defining "message fiction".
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I found AJ to include an interesting exploration of when something (gender, in this case) matters to some people but not others, rather than having a message that gender differences are culturally conditioned. But I recently read a comment on how AJ's pronoun thing was seen as groundbreaking in the western world when the characters are basically speaking Turkish, which does not have separate pronouns by gender.
But really, the parts of the book that I found groundbreaking and making it worth of awards were the parts about the ships and the ancillaries, and the breathtaking scenes that were described from multiple viewpoints of one entity at once.
I am always surprised when people bring it up as an example of a feminist book. I didn't think it had a particularly feminist viewpoint or message. We don't know the genders of most of the main characters, at least not at first. I think people look at it that way because "she" is used as the gender-neutral pronoun thoughout the book, but given the premise that one culture doesn't differentiate between genders in their languages and others do, you couldn't use "he" as the gender neutral pronoun because people in our culture wouldn't notice there was anything going on because they're so used to books where all the characters are male. In order to make the conceit work, the author HAD to pick female pronouns. To take the reader out of the familiar, not necessarily to say anything about gender differences. The physical differences that matter in the book, after all, are ancillaries vs non-ancillaries. The implants that ancillaries get make them so much faster and stronger than other humans that the differences between male and female component bodies are irrelevant.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
ElJay pretty much my exact thoughts about AJ only said much better.
It also has, despite all that above, a message that Sad Puppies types should enjoy. It's basically a one man (or in this case, one female out of many ancillaries) quest for revenge against an authoritative regime.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Maybe I should back up and ask how you're defining "message fiction".
I guess I'd define it along these lines: Message fiction is fiction that has a political theme, where the reader's enjoyment of the fiction depends to a significant extent whether they can accept or agree with that theme.
My litmus test for whether something is "message fiction" is: how much would this book annoy someone who disagrees with the author's politics?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
My litmus test for whether something is "message fiction" is: how much would this book annoy someone who disagrees with the author's politics?
Maybe it's just me but I have read a few books with a message I strongly disagreed with but still enjoyed because that message fit the world and the people of the book well.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So Tom Clancy novels are message fiction?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So Tom Clancy novels are message fiction?
Many of them are. It's not a perfect litmus test, but I do think of Clancy as a very political writer overall. Also a freaking terrible writer, so I'm not exactly fully qualified to judge the majority of his corpus since I have no interest in reading it.
But Red Storm Rising is absolutely a message novel, for example. (The poisonously wrong message: the US could fight and win a major conventional war against the USSR without nuclear escalation.)
quote:Maybe it's just me but I have read a few books with a message I strongly disagreed with but still enjoyed because that message fit the world and the people of the book well.
I like to think I'm like that myself. So think of the litmus test as asking whether an average or typical person on the opposite side would be annoyed.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Empire.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Destineer,do you see message fiction as being inherently lesser than non-message fiction written with equivalent craft?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
No, I love a good piece of message fiction! I guess that wasn't clear before. Handmaid's Tale is one of my favorite books ever, for example.
I was just saying before that the Sad Puppies aren't wrong when they say a lot of left-wing message fiction wins Hugos and Hugo noms. It actually seems to me like the average Sad Puppy actively likes right-wing message fiction (they seem to love JC Wright), so it's a bit disingenuous of them to complain about this. But they're not wrong.
I do think message has the disadvantage that you're cutting out a certain segment of your potential audience (your political opponents). But the same is true when you choose to write within a genre. If you write a fantasy novel, that means quite a few people are not going to be interested in your novel.
It would be nicer if there was a better system (like there is with genres) for alerting people to which novels they'll dislike on political grounds. But reviews function fairly well for those who read them.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Okay, glad to hear it. I mean, by the definition you're using, Huck Finn, Grapes of Wrath, the Odyssey--all fairly indisputably great works--are all message fiction.
In thinking about it, I think that I'd refine the definition of message fiction that you gave by saying that in order for something to be considered message fiction, the message needs to be so central to the work that to remove it would be to unravel the story entirely. What do you think of that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: conspicuously not associating with people like vox day is as easy as conspicuously not associating with, say, white supremacists who stalk women. he is so far beyond the pale in terms of the open loathesomeness of his views that any fairweather collab already says something.
I agree with you for the most part but it can be easy to get associated with people like that just because you share an unrelated (or only slightly related) viewpoint with them. I don't agree with the Sad or Rabid Puppies but I do have some conservative leanings. So while I do not agree with them in any of their racist, sexist, religious or other craziness, because I am a gun owner and enthusiast there are plenty of people that would be happy to lump me right in with the Vox Days of the world.
It is a profoundly major leap on another person's behalf to take a person who "has some conservative leanings" to "is basically like vox day" so the few self-isolating reactionaries who do so can be safely ignored.
but people who are coming up with trepidatious and mewling caveats on why they are not explicitly disavowing their association with beale in this movement are at least helpfully providing all the room for being side-eyed necessary.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: In thinking about it, I think that I'd refine the definition of message fiction that you gave by saying that in order for something to be considered message fiction, the message needs to be so central to the work that to remove it would be to unravel the story entirely. What do you think of that?
It seems like another useful place to draw the line, for sure, and I agree that by that standard Ancillary Justice isn't really a message novel.
quote:but people who are coming up with trepidatious and mewling caveats on why they are not explicitly disavowing their association with beale in this movement are at least helpfully providing all the room for being side-eyed necessary.
My guess is that they just don't want to come out and admit they were wrong. Correia, who put the whole thing together a couple years back in the first place, probably didn't vet Beale beyond making sure he was conservative. He may not have known about Beale's more bigoted posts until he was already committed to working with him. Then he started rationalizing the mistakes he'd already made by involving Beale and the rest is history.
Who knows, but I think it's the likeliest possibility given my read on Correia.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I don't know how any definition of "message fiction" isn't eventually going to boil down to "ideas I don't want to read about."
Every single book is written from a perspective; every single book gives you a take on the world. There's no fiction without a perspective. If we say that some stories are just more blatant about their perspective, that's entirely a matter of reader response. It's entirely a matter of how closely you read a book and how seriously you take it.
One person can read Robinson Crusoe and just see an adventure story; someone else reads it and sees a deeply conflicted book about the place of the individual in the modern Christian world. One person just sees a bunch of stuff happening to Crusoe; the other person puts the pieces together into an image of the world Defoe was building.
It's the same with everything from Starship Troopers to Infinite Jest to the Hyperion books. When I read Starship Troopers as a kid, all I saw was awesome mech suits. Reading it as an adult, how can anyone avoid seeing the "message" in that book?
So in reality, here is the definition of message fiction: "A book who's perspective I missed, or a book who's perspective I don't want to think about."
With that definition in mind, anyone who labels a book "message fiction" is saying more about themselves than the book.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: So in reality, here is the definition of message fiction: "A book who's perspective I missed, or a book who's perspective I don't want to think about."
With that definition in mind, anyone who labels a book "message fiction" is saying more about themselves than the book.
I get what you are saying but what about author's intent? An author just trying to write the best story he or she can is obviously going to inject their own perspective into the writing but there are many works where this was the intention all along. Not to write the best story they could but to basically advertise for their social or political views. I feel there is a big difference between Anne Leckie and Ayn Rand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To me, a book is message fiction when the author, as he or she is writing, is thinking, "Man, everything will be so much better when everybody reads my book and finally understands this fundamental truth about the world."
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Ummm, you guys do know that the Puppies "slate" - actually suggestions - included for Best Editor - Short Form: Edmund R. Schubert, Orson Scott Card's InterGalactic Medicine Show, right?
And for best novelette: "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium" by Gray Rinehart, Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show?
And was actually a pretty diverse list?
And if you haven't read Wrights "pale Realms of Shade" you're missing a treat.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
By the way - howdy, y'all. Long time fan of OSC's work and many time visitor, first time post.
And A Puppy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sad or Rabid?
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Probably Rabid, since I hooked up through Vox's site - I've checked out site for many years of and on - and checked out the issues on Correia's and Torgerson's blogs.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Are you from Indiana, hoosiertoo?
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Yes. Indy born and raised.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Oh, cool. I lived in Indiana for a while growing up and was technically a resident of the state until a few weeks ago. A good chunk of my family and friends still live there. From Minnesota originally, though.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
What area?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well if you came in through Vox, I'll go ahead and ask outright: what is your opinion on the numerous racist, homophobic, and misogynistic statements Vox has made not only about humanity in general but sci-fi writers in particular?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
North-Central Indianapolis.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Carmelite? Say it ain't so!
My sister and brother went to North Central. Marshall for me - northeast-sider.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: Carmelite? Say it ain't so!
Silence, peasant!
Yeah, though to be fair it wasn't like that *at all* in the mid-90s when my family moved there. (they've since migrated to Fishers and Noblesville respectively) It's getting out of control, though... I went there last November when I was visiting home - went out to eat with my sister at the Bazbeaux off 131st/Main St and the Monon - and we actually got sneered at by an Ugg-beshod yuppie. It was surreal.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Rakeesh - that's kind of tough to answer, don't you think?
I don't agree with him about a lot of things and we have engaged in his comments section on the odd occasion. He's always been fair to me.
I don't need to defend Vox - he's perfectly capable - but he's none of those things. Of course, if you've only seen quotes out of context then you'll never know because he is prone to incendiary dialogue and some of those quotes out of context makes him look really out there. That said, he doesn't pretend to be warm and cuddly.
He and Scalzi have had a hate-hate relationship for awhile now. I don't much care about his personal squabbles and normally skip that stuff. From what I've seen, it's mutual and they're both big boys. To my knowledge he doesn't respond unless provoked, and then he can be ruthless - if that's the right word? - but I've always found him to be fair.
Read his blog. He's not what you think. Definitely a small "l" libertarian.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Dogbreath -
Well, if you got sneered at by an Ugg-beshod yuppie, you can't be all bad. I was once profiled by a Carmel cop - my car didn't look like I belonged in his town after midnight.
Although my car at the time might have got profiled in Haughville, so...
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
BTW - I moved out of the area in 92 or so and up to the Lafayette area. The Monon was actually still train track when I moved out.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
There a lot of Vox quotes that are pretty hard to justify in *any* context, unless that context is prefacing said quotes with "this is what someone who I totally disagree with would say" maybe.
As far as Carmel: to give you an idea of how much the area has changed - we lived in a trailer park before my parents bought a house there because it was the only place they could find an affordable house that would fit all of us. Then word got out about the low crime rate and good schools and all that and now it's all gone to pot-er-potpourri and "artisanal boutiques" and a planned art district that actually has a big arch that says "Carmel Arts and Design District" just in case you didn't already notice from the literally palpable pretension in the air. *shudder*
I don't understand how people can live like that. It's so sad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I therefore suggest that their assertions should be taken with at least a small grain of salt rather than credited to me. And it should be obvious that, being a libertarian, I am not actively attempting to take away anyone's "most basic rights". Jemisin has it wrong; it is not that I, and others, do not view her as human, (although genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens), it is that we simply do not view her as being fully civilized for the obvious historical reason that she is not.
She is lying about the laws in Texas and Florida too. The laws are not there to let whites " just shoot people like me, without consequence, as long as they feel threatened by my presence", those self-defense laws have been put in place to let whites defend their lives and their property from people, like her, who are half-savages engaged in attacking them.
I admit I would be surprised to hear a context in which this weren't openly racist and misogynistic, Hoosier. And I'm not asking you to defend him, I'm asking what your thoughts on such remarks are.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Vox occasionally does argumentum ad absurdum. There a couple of quotes I've seen promulgated that were lift from just such an argument. Like I said, it's best to take it up with him and see for yourself. I'd hate to deal with some of my quotes out of context, and I'm the nicest guy I know.
Parts of Carmel were always stuffy and pretentious. I did the trailer denizen thing myself here in Podunk while I was saving up for a house down payment. Except in tornado season, it didn't seem much different from any other crappy place I ever lived.
I'm going to have to get to bed soon, but I'll check back in from time to time. Good to "meet you" sir!
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Rakeesh -
Context -
Vox says Jemison - who is a piece of work herself - is actually more homo sapiens sapiens than he is himself, given that there is Neanderthal genes in his DNA. "half-savages like her" isn't in itself a racist statement. It could apply to a half-savage of any race. Trust me, it's meth central out here in Podunk. I own a gun myself. I'll use it if I have to defend my property from the local semi-feral white meth-heads or semi-feral black hooligans down from the craphole of northwest Indiana. Self defense. I'd suggest civilized people of any race, creed, sexual orientation or religion buy a gun and do the same. So, no. Not particularly racist.
If there's a misogynistic statement in there somewhere, I don't see it. It's true Vox is an anti-feminist, but then so am I. Marxism really does ruin everything. One needn't be a misogynist to be an anti-feminist.
There. My thoughts.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Really - good night folks!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I hadn't actually moved on to the misogyny, yet.
Does Vox have any way of knowing what sort of DNA she has in her background? And why on *Earth* would anyone read that piece and conclude 'oh, he's actually saying she is more Homo sapiens than I am' when he calls her a savage?
As for self defense, he explicitly talks about whites defending themselves, so no, I'm afraid your explanation there doesn't wash either.
As for not needing to be a misogynist to be a feminist...well. If you can say that with a straight face, it makes me frankly wonder how deep we would have to inquire into your thoughts on feminism or misogyny before we found something that smacked of the latter. Anyway, as for Vox and misogyny...well there's nothing quite like blaming women for the downfall of civilization, expressing fondness for honor killings and acid attacks, and praising the Taliban for targeting female education advocates to make someone wonder about misogyny.
That ain't an argument ad absurdum.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Remember: you don't have to be a misogynist to be anti-feminist!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: Ummm, you guys do know that the Puppies "slate" - actually suggestions - included for Best Editor - Short Form: Edmund R. Schubert, Orson Scott Card's InterGalactic Medicine Show, right?
And for best novelette: "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, Earth to Alluvium" by Gray Rinehart, Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show?
And was actually a pretty diverse list?
And if you haven't read Wrights "pale Realms of Shade" you're missing a treat.
Hi there, and welcome, although I'm not around much myself anymore.
I think many/most of us DO know that those were on there, and that it was a pretty diverse list. For me, the issue is with the idea of suggested voting lists at all, regardless of who's on them.
I do not believe that if everyone who voted on either slate sat down to make their own list of the stories they enjoyed most for the year it would come up as exactly the same as the slate they voted for. Would there be some overlap? Probably, especially for the specific people who encouraged y'all to register and vote. And I have no problem with anyone encouraging people to register and vote.
Even if you read and enjoyed everything on the list that you voted for, is it really the list you would have come up with yourself, had you just decided to participate in the nominations? It makes sense, if a particular author or editor is encouraging their fans to vote, that those fans are likely to vote for that person. I would have no issue with that. I also have no issue with authors making reading recommendations throughout the year, or editor's noting who from their publishing house is eligible in what catagories. All of those things are different from putting out a slate. While putting out a slate is legal, it's in poor taste.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: I'm going to have to get to bed soon, but I'll check back in from time to time. Good to "meet you" sir!
Nice to meet you too. And welcome to Hatrack.
You should stick around! We could use some new members.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Does Vox have any way of knowing what sort of DNA she has in her background? And why on *Earth* would anyone read that piece and conclude 'oh, he's actually saying she is more Homo sapiens than I am' when he calls her a savage?
What he's going off is the fact that African people have less neanderthal DNA than other ethnicities.
My understanding is that Day thinks this means Africans have the worst genes of all humans, for the same reason that purebred dogs are dumber and less robust than mutts--the more genetic variety, the better. So being pure homo sapiens is worse than being a h. sapiens/neanderthal mix.
So, still pretty racist! And pseudoscientific.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, as for Vox and misogyny...well there's nothing quite like blaming women for the downfall of civilization, expressing fondness for honor killings and acid attacks, and praising the Taliban for targeting female education advocates to make someone wonder about misogyny.
That ain't an argument ad absurdum.
I find it profoundly delightful that anyone anywhere is going to attempt to write this off as "OH HE WAS JUST PLAYIN"
nope
beale has said straightforwardly that allowing women to vote and shit is destroying western civilization
beale has said straightforwardly that blacks are, genetically, violent brutes compared to whites
beale has said straightforwardly that homosexuality is a defect to be treated with conversion therapy
beale is an aggressively and insanely bigoted horrorshow whose views are expressly condemnable
no really — beale is a neoreactionary christian dominionist who thinks that blacks are inherently less capable of being civilized, that controlling women with honor killings and acid attacks is preferable to the alternative of the equality of the sexes, etc
let's try to defend him by saying he's merely being quoted out of context
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Yeah, I went and read some full blog posts just to make sure I wasn't getting anything out of context. My opinion of him hasn't changed, the guy is either delusional or just plain old evil.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Hi again - an answer to some comments - Rakeesh, et al:
"Savage" is indicative of a level of civilization - not genetics. I don't have to walk very far down the street to find barely civilized (half savage) people - and they are white.
"Feminism" - is Marxist twaddle and should be vehemently opposed - it's politics, not sex.
"Misogyny" has a specific definition - look it up. Debating Humpty Dumpty is not my cuppa.
Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and should be treated, not celebrated. Never mind the LGBTWhatever political agenda, which is poisonous. In defense of natural law and a teaching of the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean homosexuals aren't endowed by their creator with inalienable rights or are somehow subhuman. I could relate personal experience, but as with discussion on race any argument is normally disqualified as "self-hating" in the case of overcoming SSA or patronizing in the case of "racism." For instance, I (white) am married to a beautiful Latina was in a long term relationship with a black woman. Somehow or another the very fact of my "white privilege" doesn't get me a pass in the eyes of some social justice warriors - see the vilification of Brad Torgerson for an example.
Regarding "social justice" - if it requires an adjective, it ain't justice.
And before we get any farther, I simply don't respond to charges that I am any kind of "-phobe." I'll play nice and explain my position rationally if everyone else does.
Now, I have to go check the stove. Senora "She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed is expecting dinner.
More possibly later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah, yeah, dude, I don't think you realize how you're managing to come off as an obnoxious -- even odious -- stereotype. You are not sounding like a jovial, reasonable person; you are sounding like a person desperate to reconcile his obnoxiousness with his desire to be liked.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: Hi again - an answer to some comments - Rakeesh, et al:
"Savage" is indicative of a level of civilization - not genetics. I don't have to walk very far down the street to find barely civilized (half savage) people - and they are white.
"Feminism" - is Marxist twaddle and should be vehemently opposed - it's politics, not sex.
"Misogyny" has a specific definition - look it up. Debating Humpty Dumpty is not my cuppa.
Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and should be treated, not celebrated. Never mind the LGBTWhatever political agenda, which is poisonous. In defense of natural law and a teaching of the Catholic Church. It doesn't mean homosexuals aren't endowed by their creator with inalienable rights or are somehow subhuman. I could relate personal experience, but as with discussion on race any argument is normally disqualified as "self-hating" in the case of overcoming SSA or patronizing in the case of "racism." For instance, I (white) am married to a beautiful Latina was in a long term relationship with a black woman. Somehow or another the very fact of my "white privilege" doesn't get me a pass in the eyes of some social justice warriors - see the vilification of Brad Torgerson for an example.
Regarding "social justice" - if it requires an adjective, it ain't justice.
And before we get any farther, I simply don't respond to charges that I am any kind of "-phobe." I'll play nice and explain my position rationally if everyone else does.
Now, I have to go check the stove. Senora "She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed is expecting dinner.
More possibly later.
Hoosiertoo,
Just a heads up, with me your time in hatrack doesn't have to be centered on this. I bring it up because I'm interested and because it was tied directly to your entry here. Anyway, if you don't want to discuss it that's fine.
The way Vox Day uses 'savage', as tied explicitly to genetics, it is indicative of behavior *and* genes, so I'm afraid your argument falls totally flat there.
Rejecting something as 'Marxist' is not actually an argument at all. You skipped the reasons. In any event, to boil down feminism as Marxism makes me *extremely* skeptical you have even a half-decent understanding of it. If you get to simply say 'it's Marxism!' instead of actually allowing people to define it for themselves, then I get to point out that point out your rhetoric is homophobic racism and I don't have to pay heed to your explanations. Right?
Misogyny has more than one definition, and if you believe that a defense of acid attacks and honor killings doesn't fit the bill, then you need to look it up. Badly.
I don't follow the Humpty Dumpty bit?
I frankly have no patience at all with any sort of lecturing by the Catholic Church on sexuality, Hoosier. That might offend you but if we're going to go forward in this discussion it's useful for us to know when we're speaking a completely foreign language, so to speak.
Simply put, neither you nor anyone else has a basis for a statement like 'intrinsically disordered' to describe homosexuality. To do so asserts an understanding of human sexuality far in excess of what you or anyone actually possesses. In order for you to claim homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, that means you understand 'proper' human sexuality on a fundamental level. You don't.
As for not responding to any sort of -phobe remarks, that's all well and good. Perhaps you should consider extending the same sort of consideration to your opponents-such as 'Marxist' feminists-that you demand for yourself?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: I could relate personal experience, but as with discussion on race any argument is normally disqualified as "self-hating" in the case of overcoming SSA or patronizing in the case of "racism." For instance, I (white) am married to a beautiful Latina was in a long term relationship with a black woman.
Well if you're going to count being an LUG as overcoming same sex attraction, yeah, it certainly happens, lol
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
<I>'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'</I>
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
quote:Well if you're going to count being an LUG as overcoming same sex attraction, yeah, it certainly happens, lol
Unfortunate construction - not referring to SWMBO. Typing while cooking.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Misogyny has more than one definition, and if you believe that a defense of acid attacks and honor killings doesn't fit the bill, then you need to look it up. Badly.
Just curious, what other definitions are there? First four links in a google definition search all give just one definition: hatred of women.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Rakeesh -
I am a Catholic and proponent of Natural. If you can't accept arguments from natural law then discussion is useless since we'll just talk past each other.
There is a culture war and obviously we're on different teams.
It appears likely that my participation in the future will be limited to non-controversial topics.
I have a few more minutes. Anything else?
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Natural Law. Yeesh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wasn't precise enough there: I meant that misogyny could exist where overt, outspoken hatred didn't, such as mistrust and prejudice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Natural law' is not an argument-first you need to actually demonstrate that this natural law *exists*, and homosexuality violates it. Especially if you're arguing from a religious perspective, I wonder if you're going to skip that step?
As for your being Catholic and that being utterly invalid to me as a basis of sexual ethics, well. I'll just point out that an institution which has such a despicable track record on policing itself for pedophiles and contraceptives among the most poor and vulnerable in the world...that institution is in an *incredibly* bad position to lecture homosexuals on their behavior being 'natural' or not.
As for feminism, again, you're asserting 'it's Marxism!' as some sort of argument. Even if we accepted that feminism was completely Marxist in its origins for the sake of argument-it's not, but for the sake of argument-that has little relevance to what feminists might be *now*. Anyway it's just plain strange that you would use as a source for your claim that feminism is a Marxist construct a site which says in the very first line that Marxist feminism is a *branch* of feminism.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Och, mein Gott.
You seriously want me to go into a history of Natural Law and defend it's existence? 800 years of Scholastic thought, 2000 years of Church teaching based on 5000 years of Jewish thought and history and Hellenic and Roman synthesis on a forum topic about a kerfuffle over a Hugo award?
Pray, tell me - where are you coming from? Do you have a worldview? How do define it? Where does it derive it's authority? Or do you make it up as you go?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wasn't precise enough there: I meant that misogyny could exist where overt, outspoken hatred didn't, such as mistrust and prejudice.
Ah I see. Quite true.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Rakeesh again -
And while you're answering - or not - the other questions,
an institution which has such a despicable track record on policing itself for pedophiles
Do you really want to go there? Pedophile priests, homosexuals almost to a man. Really?
Do you know the basis of the Church's teaching on contraception?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hoosiertoo,
quote: You seriously want me to go into a history of Natural Law and defend it's existence? 800 years of Scholastic thought, 2000 years of Church teaching based on 5000 years of Jewish thought and history and Hellenic and Roman synthesis on a forum topic about a kerfuffle over a Hugo award.
Because...I was asking you to do that, I guess?
In any event, I wasn't. You could start by stating which parts of 'natural law' homosexuality transgresses against? And why, even if this is so, what two consenting adults do between themselves should be any business of yours when our society allows plenty of other 'transgressions'?
As for my worldview, weren't you just criticizing me for asking such big questions? On this particular set of questions, my worldview is this: until and unless you can demonstrate a credible threat to others posed by consenting homosexuality-in a secular way, mind you-keep your Bible and your Church at home and in your church, and out of the bedrooms and lives of nonbelievers.
quote: And while you're answering - or not - the other questions,
an institution which has such a despicable track record on policing itself for pedophiles
Do you really want to go there? Pedophile priests, homosexuals almost to a man. Really?
Do you know the basis of the Church's teaching on contraception?
Dude, I'm not harping on the questions you haven't answered yet for two reasons: you've said you were busy and a short time has passed. But there are more than one statement you've left unaddressed, so don't get snippy with me on that, alright?
Moving on: ok, setting aside for a moment your contention that pedophilia is tied to homosexuality, as though it's not a distinct aberration...and as though there aren't a whole shitload more fathers and mothers in the world molesting their daughters and sons and nieces and nephews than there are priests...let's say for the sake of argument, again-that's twice now we've had to do that with your arguments now-we accepted that pedophiles priests are also homosexuals, open and shut.
That still serves as catastrophic damage to the credibility of the RCC to preach sexual ethics to the rest of us. Put simply? If an institution can't promptly get behind the idea that protecting its members from the violence of its leaders as the first priority, and can't get behind immediately expelling those leaders when they do? They get to put their pointing fingers down because they've lost whatever feeble claim to moral authority they had in the first place. And if they do make proper reforms, *without* being compelled by governments? They damn well get to wait awhile, at least a few years, before they claim moral authority again.
Anyway, back to your 'pedophiles as homosexuals' bit: goodness, not so long ago you were stating your belief that homosexuals weren't subhuman. They're just the chief source of pedophiles, amirite?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for contraception, I'm familiar, but that's not the point. Are you familiar with its handling of the question of contraception when it comes to, say, societies riddled with HIV/AIDS?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are we really going to debate with this poor guy in an attempt to explain to him why what he considers a well-considered worldview is hollow philosophy and impossible to logically defend?
Because while it is, and I hope he someday comes to realize that, I've only ever seen these sorts of discussions actually reinforce someone's foolish beliefs as they dig in and feel compelled to defend them. Hoosiertoo's opinions on these topics are sad and ridiculous, but I don't know that engaging him on them is going to help him.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
No, we're not. Because it's neither hollow nor impossible to defend, and certainly no more so than whatever passes for anyone else's well-considered and impossible to logically defend worldview.
I've stated my premises.
I have to get up early tomorrow and spend my day with Mongols, Sons and other assorted patches. Much more clarity.
And by the way, pedophiles aren't subhuman either - they're beings made in the image of God, broken and in need of salvation, even while we call out the sin.
G'nite, all.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, hoosiertoo.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Are we really going to debate with this poor guy in an attempt to explain to him why what he considers a well-considered worldview is hollow philosophy and impossible to logically defend?
Can only speak for myself, but nope. Too old, too many bunions, too little time. That there kitchen floor ain't gonna scrub itself.
--- Edited to add: Lord, y'all, I just realized I have known some of you for more than a dozen years. When the heck did that happen?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
About three years ago. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Grrrrr. Can I at least suggest some reading material when I am at a real keyboard on Monday? F***ed up Catholicism irks me. For now, hoosiertoo, I will just say that there are some significant gaps in your understanding of both the pedophilia crisis and the Church's doctrine on birth control.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hoosiertoo, there are multiple articles that vox day wrote where he's saying pretty sincerely that women have to remain uneducated or you destroy decent society and civilization.
here is one in which he said "in light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable."
in this one he responds to a question about women, "How does throwing acid in their faces when they demand independence from men benefit women?" with the response, "Because female independence is strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills. Using the utilitarian metric favored by most atheists, a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability."
After reading these two articles, tell me explicitly which of his views you share, and explain them clearly. Do you agree that women should not be educated in order to preserve a good society, and that female equality and independence is bad and should be worked against? Do you believe like Beale that the taliban's actions against female education is worth thwarting and silencing? Do you believe that controlling women with things like honor killings and acid attacks is ultimately in any way justifiable?
Be clear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's also nip one objection in the bud: by saying 'by using the utilitarian metrics atheists...etc', that doesn't mean you get to say, "Ah ha! He was talking about how atheists think!"
Setting aside that it's a feeble smoke screen anyway, we're still left with him asserting that 'female independence' is associated with a host of social ills.
I'm fine with labeling that misogyny, mostly because it is.
Anyway, if we're still hinting that the other party isn't answering questions, you've left quite a few on the table yourself, hoosiertoo. Such as feminism being a Marxist construct and therefore twaddle? I liked that your source for this claim was a wiki entry which said in the very first line that Marxist Feminism was a *branch* of feminism.
We can start with that if you like.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@Samprimary -
Short answers:
I'm all for properly educated women. Is it necessary to preserve a good society? Not if they're either maleducated or fail to raise children and pass it on. Equality, except under the law, is unattainable because no two people of the same sex are going to be equal in everything, much less two people of opposite sex.
"Do you believe like Beale that the taliban's actions against female education is worth thwarting and silencing?"
I'm not even sure what that sentence means. That said, I'm against public education for anybody. Based on the results so far, it'd be hard to prove me wrong.
"Do you believe that controlling women with things like honor killings and acid attacks is ultimately in any way justifiable?"
Good Lord, no. Except for self-defense (including war) and occasional, reasonable corporal punishment for younguns, physical violence against anyone is unnecessary. I'm against the death penalty, too. FWIW.
Shaming and ostracism work just fine for women or men, and have for thousands of years. Ask any SJW.
@Rakeesh - if you parse the sentence, it's exactly what he means. Words, context and construction convey meaning. I get to use "Aha! He's talking about what atheists think!" - not so much, but I'll roll with that for now - because English.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Been busy. Sorry it took so long to roll back through. It's riding season! And grass mowing. And gardening.
Never mind holding women and minorities down. It's all so tiring. Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Ok. Convince me.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
I'll cruise back through when I can. I'm still reading in the rest of the forums, getting to know some of the posters.
Later!
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:I'm not even sure what that sentence means. That said, I'm against public education for anybody. Based on the results so far, it'd be hard to prove me wrong.
You approve of widespread illiteracy and ignorance? Generally, the alternative to public education is not better education but rather no education.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This is an account by a woman who was part of the Papal Birth Control Commission. The summary: Despite the overwhelming recommendation of the bishops, cardinals, gynecologists, physicians, psychiatrists, demographers, sociologists, economists and married couples who were on the Council, a very few (four if I recall) bishops swayed Pope Paul VI to retain the ban on birth control in order to keep from acknowledging that Pope Pius XI erred in Casti connubii.
I should note that my cousin co-authored the second book. He is the foremost expert on the abuse scandal. (He also point out that he did not pick the title. It is much more "academic" than it appears.) Most of the book is about the history of sexual abuse in the Church, the conditions in the Church that lead to abuse, and the complicity of the bishops in allowing it to continue. However (Short, sloppy summary):
There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that homosexuals are more apt to be attracted to children than anyone else. Priests on the other hand have vastly more access to young boys than to young girls. Also, celibacy is often correlated with psychosexual immaturity. That will often express itself as an attraction to a self-substitute - someone who resembles oneself. Finally, in a culture where all sexual desire is considered shameful, secrecy is essential and children are more easily controlled.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Those aren't very good answers. I have to get more detail from you before they're in any way meaningful.
quote:Short answers:
I'm all for properly educated women. Is it necessary to preserve a good society? Not if they're either maleducated or fail to raise children and pass it on. Equality, except under the law, is unattainable because no two people of the same sex are going to be equal in everything, much less two people of opposite sex.
What, explicitly, is your definition of "properly" educated women? What education is "proper" for women? How does this differ for education for men? Is there any education you feel needs to be reserved for men?
quote:I'm not even sure what that sentence means. That said, I'm against public education for anybody. Based on the results so far, it'd be hard to prove me wrong.
You mean like if I collected a comparison between countries with public education and countries without public education, we would see no evidence favoring the outcome of countries with public education? The statement, on its face, appears ridiculous.
quote:Good Lord, no.
So do you have any defense for Theodore Beale believing this explicitly?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:‘Legitimacy,’ Sandifer says. Legitimacy for whom? For the likeminded—who else? But that, my well-educated friend, is the sound-proofed legitimacy of the Booker, or the National Book Awards—which is to say, the legitimacy of the irrelevant, the socially inert. The last thing this accelerating world needs is more ingroup ejaculate. The fact that Beale managed to pull this little coup is proof positive that science fiction and fantasy matter, that we dwell in a rare corner of culture where the battle of ideas is for… ****ing… real.
Edit: Fixed link
[ May 01, 2015, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Foust ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hoosier,
I'm pretty sure the crack about public schools was really one about how *American* public schools are managed. Even if it was, though, it was a silly remark when we're talking about people who want 'education' for women to be, I don't know, parts of the Koran?
If you don't believe honor killings and acid attacks are justifiable, on what basis do you not repudiate Vox Day? He is on record stating that there is some rationality in those things, thanks to the independence of women being linked to 'a host of social ills'.
As for shaming and ostracism, well if you're going to bring in the scope of history, you look pretty damn silly complaining about SJWs which are a very modern phenomenon. You also look silly because we're talking about organized violence against and shaming of women here, and Vox Day's support of such practices, which is pretty much one of the oldest types of ostracism we've got as a species. But hey, good time to whine about those mean ole SJWs, right? All complaining about Vox Day expressing approval for *the Taliban* and stuff. Tyrants.
As for context, no, it was transparent BS when he tried to suggest that that sort of utilitarian worldview was one tied exclusively to atheists. And I notice, since you mentioned not answering questions earlier, that for like the third time now? You left off remarking on Vox Day's assertions that empowering women leads to social ills.
And as for Marxism and feminism, you claimed that feminism was, by definition, Marxist nonsense. You *still* have not even approached substantiating that claim. The first 'source' you offered for that explicitly stated that 'Marxist feminism' was a *branch* of feminism. Now you offer another link to something which talks about the role feminists played in the beginnings of Marxism and vice versa-which is still nowhere near your original point!
The 'short answer' stuff where you simply ignore things said to you, or forget them, is wearing thin. Partly because of your shot about not answering questions, I will admit. Kmbboots made a thorough post about this, but homosexuality =/ pedophilia. That may work in the echo chambers of politics you might be used to, but out in the world where the default assumption that homosexuality is a violation of natural law is regarded as offensive and ridiculous, you have to do better.
You're right about at least one thing, though: there is a 'culture war'. Always is, really. But strangely, folks like yourself only started complaining when you started to lose.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@Samprimary -
Sorry for short answers - my time is limited. Sometimes I forget that I can't assume the people I'm interacting with don't necessarily understand my "mental shorthand."
Properly educated for women and men = Reading (in the classics,) writing (also with an eye toward the classics) and 'rithmetic (math through at least algebra and geometry, calculus even better - to be fair, my weakest subjects.) Also at least one foreign language and at least a study in Latin and Greek roots. Also basic civics and an overview of world and more in-depth American history. I also like to see musical training, both history and theory and practice, including vocal, if one has the voice for it. After high school, private university if you have the aptitude or need; otherwise self education in areas of interest. I prefer homeschool or private school through 6th grade and some combination of homeschool and formal instruction through 8th grade, thereafter formal instruction, particularly in math, basic philosophy and rhetoric, etc. in private religious high schools. Religious training throughout, of course. Even a budding atheist should know the great religions of the world; so should Christians know their "competitors."
Two of my kids went through public schools, one a combination of public and private schools. I thought their formal educations were largely a bad joke. I've - actually, more my wife- homeschooled one of the grandkids.
LCD "public education" can be easily taught at home or private schools. Students who are incapable of being educated or who can't (or won't) sit still for a basic education described above can drop out or be taught to their capacity - horse, water etc.
It's possible to get a decent education in public schools, but not as they are currently run. Better to phase them out through voucher systems and attrition.
quote:"So do you have any defense for Theodore Beale believing this explicitly? "
Again - he doesn't. Take it up with Beale. I'm now done with that subject.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am deeply grateful that the world you desire, hoosiertoo, is not a world that will ever again exist -- to the extent that it ever existed, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Beale doesn't explicitly believe that independence for women does not lead to a host of social ills?
He literally said so, and you're familiar with his remarks on the subject so I know you know he said so. It's a fine thing to be done with it when you never truthfully engaged on it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Again - he doesn't. Take it up with Beale.
I'm not going to take your committed misrepresentation of what Beale clearly believes up with Beale; that's on you, and relevant to how you present him, or what he 'actually' believes.
You were trying to deny things he clearly said meant ... exactly what they say. It's a non-defense you won't even stand behind except to presume to us we can't judge his horrific statements for exactly what they are.
Which makes it easy to understand how you could be standing up for him.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: I'm all for properly educated women. Is it necessary to preserve a good society? Not if they're either maleducated or fail to raise children and pass it on.
So what about men? Do they have to raise children and pass it on? If they don't is that a waste or their education?
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@Rakeesh -
quote:folks like yourself only started complaining when you started to lose.
I guess I've had a head start on most of my fellow travellers then. So the corollary is "folks like yourself won't stop until we've lost?" There's no place in Social Justice Hell (or paradise, if you prefer) for reactionaries like me? Good comrade.
"Empowering" women. How sexist of you.
What is the biological purpose of a woman?
What is the biological purpose of a man?
Inherent in these questions is one small part of the argument from natural law for the "intrinsic disorder" of homosexuals.
Fine. If you want to split hairs and assert that just because feminism and Marxism (progressivism, leftardism, whatever) aren't definably the same, you win. That they've been political bedfellows is undeniable; I suspect you'll deny it.
Men who have sex with underage boys are homosexuals. (BTW, pederasty =/ pedophilia) Can we agree with that much? Pederasty is immoral, right? If not, why not?
The problem of pederasts in the the Catholic Church is a convenient bludgeon. "If pedophilia were anything but a convenient hammer to be used when reporting incessantly on hated targets such as the Catholic Church, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times would not have run articles legitimizing it. The 61 biggest California newspapers would not have published nearly 2,000 articles on the church scandal during the first half of 2002 but, during the same period, only four on the public-school sex scandal, which a government-sponsored Hofstra University study found is 100 times the magnitude of the church scandal and is still ongoing." - Selwyn Duke.
And do try not to be disingenuous. Ostracism and shame are at work in every group, or else there is no group; what do you think is going on here? Besides some friendly discourse with dogbreath, the only interaction here has been in response to my "badthink." Am I a troll? Don't feed me. Do you run me off? More often than not the ostracism isn't blatant. "Badthinker" either shuts up and is mostly tolerated or simply self-segregates.
I don't beieve "organized violence" is even necessary. Insinuate yourself (for example - you may fit right in for all I know) into my biker club, you'll find yourself right back out again if you don't fit the criteria for membership. Happens all the time, and it's not a bad thing. I like to associate with bikers. Freedom of association is a good thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Huh. Most of the bikers I know would find your tired sexism rather irritating.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What is the biological purpose of a woman?
What is the biological purpose of a man?
Inherent in these questions is one small part of the argument from natural law for the "intrinsic disorder" of homosexuals.
What are your answers to these questions and what do you consider the intrinsic disorder of homosexuals?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it goes without saying that he believes the biological purpose of both man and woman is to serve as batteries to power flying squid robots. Homosexuals, who produce too fabulous a frequency of energy, are clearly unsuited to this task and should be relegated to homeschooling the little robot larvae.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
did you
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
did you actually just make Natural Law not painfully boring
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@Risuena -
quote:So what about men? Do they have to raise children and pass it on? If they don't is that a waste or their education?
Not the subject at hand, but yes. And yes. Duty to the next generation.
@TomDavidson - that it ever did exist at all is the reason this country isn't a third world shithole quite yet. But it's coming. The 1% will, as always, do well enough. Pity the lower classes. People forget, if they ever knew, that Christendom was an improvement over the status quo ante. Read Rodney Stark.
@Samprimary - take it anyway you want. Suit youself. I've already told you what I think. My reading comprehension is just fine. Tested at 99th percentile at one time, if memory serves. I'm sure age degrades some skills; it has everything else.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@TomDavidson - I'm sure you'd find the "Property of ..." shirts on some of the women at the patch party disturbing.
If you're going to accuse of sexism, you may as well let me in on whatever the definition is this time. I'm sure my wife would enlighten you otherwise. Maybe not, though. I am a bit of an asshole, although I'd like to think I'm an equal opportunity asshole.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@Samprimary - unless you read Aquinas, Natural Law isn't boring at all. Good Thomas can give you a bit of a headache if you aren't in the mood.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: Men who have sex with underage boys are homosexuals. (BTW, pederasty =/ pedophilia) Can we agree with that much? Pederasty is immoral, right? If not, why not?
Nope. Not that simple. Did you do your homework? Pederasty is immoral not because of the gender of the participants but because there is no consent. And both pederasty and pedophilia (of both boys and girls) was (and I bet I can safely say "is") going on in the Church.
The scandal is not limited to the fact of the abuse. The scandal is magnified by the institutional aiding and abetting - facilitating, even - of these crimes by people at the very highest level.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am a bit of an asshole
Hey, own it, man. My criteria for sexism in this scenario: believing that the role of a woman, once she's acquired enough familiarity with the classics of Western civilization to be a good little citizen, is to produce babies for the man who chose her and then stay home with them in order to avoid having to sentence them to the ignominy of public school, ideally avoiding political opinions not shared by her husband and recognizing that her personal preferences (as fueled by her natural maternal instincts and inherent appreciation of dominance) may not be the best for society as a whole.
But, yes, I generally don't like "property of..." shirts. When worn unironically, they're usually evidence of stupidity; when worn ironically, they're evidence of smugness.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@TomDavidson - To thine own self be true. Know thyself. Etc...and so I own it.
My wife works. Has since the kids were raised (and off and on as they were growing up depending on what shifts I was working) and has interests and political beliefs different from mine, if even less libertarian. She went from a Clinton voter to hard right faster than a semi with a blown passenger side steer tire. She didn't produce babies for me, but with me. Bilingual. Smart lady, marrying me being possibly the dumbest thing she's ever done.
Inherent appreciation of dominance - lol - you obviously you don't know my old lady.
Viva la difference. So...not a sexist.
Look at it as "What is best?"
quote:But, yes, I generally don't like "property of..." shirts. When worn unironically, they're usually evidence of stupidity; when worn ironically, they're evidence of smugness.
And yet these women chose to wear them. Hater Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hoosier,
quote:I guess I've had a head start on most of my fellow travellers then. So the corollary is "folks like yourself won't stop until we've lost?" There's no place in Social Justice Hell (or paradise, if you prefer) for reactionaries like me? Good comrade.
The persistence you have in identifying me as some sort of Marxist is frankly pretty funny. Feminists are Marxists. I'm a Marxist. Who else is a Marxist? Liberals are, I expect. Atheists for sure.
quote:"Empowering" women. How sexist of you.
What is the biological purpose of a woman?
What is the biological purpose of a man?
Inherent in these questions is one small part of the argument from natural law for the "intrinsic disorder" of homosexuals.
Fine. If you want to split hairs and assert that just because feminism and Marxism (progressivism, leftardism, whatever) aren't definably the same, you win. That they've been political bedfellows is undeniable; I suspect you'll deny it.
Should the sole role of government and culture be in adhering to the 'biological purposes' of men and women? Which does pose an interesting question. Nowhere in the 'biological purpose' of a human being is there anything about worshipping a deity-people can procreate perfectly well without it. Outlaw religion! It's not tied to our biological purpose.
Obviously that's a ridiculous argument. Even if I granted your premise, which rather fundamentally dehumanizes those without interest or ability to procreate, even when they're heterosexual. I guess for them it's a cold, cold world out there? or something?
As for 'winning' about Marxism and feminism, well on that particular question my winning was a given. You made a silly statement. And I won't deny that feminism and Marxism have had connections in the past. Marxism, having ties to a group of people in the larger society with a history of being oppressed, lacking in power and representation...weird!
quote:And do try not to be disingenuous. Ostracism and shame are at work in every group, or else there is no group; what do you think is going on here? Besides some friendly discourse with dogbreath, the only interaction here has been in response to my "badthink." Am I a troll? Don't feed me. Do you run me off? More often than not the ostracism isn't blatant. "Badthinker" either shuts up and is mostly tolerated or simply self-segregates.
You were the one who brought up ostracism and suggested it was somehow the provenance of social justice warriors. That was you, remember?
quote:I don't beieve "organized violence" is even necessary. Insinuate yourself (for example - you may fit right in for all I know) into my biker club, you'll find yourself right back out again if you don't fit the criteria for membership. Happens all the time, and it's not a bad thing. I like to associate with bikers. Freedom of association is a good thing.
OK, at this point your question of whether or not you're a troll is starting to become clear. We weren't talking about a voluntary social club based on a pastime, we were talking about violence against women in countries where it is literally institutional, and Vox Day's defense of the practice as having a rational basis somewhere, because hey, liberated women are the root of so many social ills.
Are you going to just continue to pretend this wasn't said? No one else is forgetting, you know.
And as for the institutional problem the RCC has with handling pedophilia on the part of its priests, and almost even more troubling the history of covering up and shuffling them around...you're goddamn right it's a convenient freaking bludgeon. Your church, in the persons of its Pope and its priesthood, claim to be the representatives of God here on Earth, and yet historically and even into the present day, you don't come down like a ton of freaking bricks on abusive priests and those who shelter them. It has to be pried out of you with shoehorns and crowbars, frequently with the force of secular law.
But boy-howdy, if there are some women somewhere in the church talking about hey maybe they too could be priests someday, well. Then the institutional priority comes rather into focus. Investigations. Chastisements. Excommunications. Denouncements. Right from on-high in Rome.
And then the same church is going to lecture the world on contraception and homosexuality? You're goddamned right it's a convenient bludgeon. I would thank your church for handing it to me so nicely, if the cost hadn't been, well, the rape and torture of children.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@kmbboots -
I've already decried the lavender mafia in the Church. I don't think there's any place in the church for pederasts or pedophiles or their enablers. It's a sad fact that predators hang out where the prey is.
Who decided that pederasty was immoral in the first place? Who says that consent is even necessary? Why is it necessary? Why do I care if a man wants to have sex with an (arbitrarily) underage woman or man. Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed (literally.) Aren't teens sexual beings? Why is it okay to choose to have sex with a 17 year old man but not a 19 year old man.
Chastity...abstinence...hello?
Selwyn Duke -
quote:"...there is great historical precedent for pedophilia, that thing most would currently say we could never accept. And the obvious place to start here is with ancient Greece. The civilization is well-known for its acceptance of homosexuality, yet what actually was most common in this arena was pederasty, sexual relationships between men and boys. It is said that in the mid and late periods of ancient Sparta, the practice was institutionalized in the city-state’s military camps, with a 12-year-old boy being attached to a mature man who would become the child’s mentor and, apparently, molester. And homoerotic ancient Greek art and, more significantly, the casual way prominent Greeks spoke of pederasty attest to its widespread acceptance. As to the latter, historian Plutarch addresses Theban pederasty in Life of Pelopidas and explains that it was an educational device for boys that was designed to “soften, while they were young, their natural fierceness” and “temper the manners and characters of the youth.” The poet Solon gushed about pederasty in his poem “Boys and Sport,” and tradition tells us that the warrior group the Sacred Band of Thebes comprised pederastic man-youth pairings. In fact, the Greeks even had words describing the players in man-boy relationships: An erastes was an adult man who courted or was in a sexual relationship with a boy (this accounts for part of the derivation of “pederast”), who himself was known as an eromenos.
Yet it wasn’t just the “advanced” Greeks. History is littered with examples of primitive peoples that practiced institutionalized pedophilia; the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea does so to this day, and many military personnel will attest to how the abuse of “dancing boys” is widespread in Afghanistan. The reality? When it wasn’t actually prescribing it as a good that created a bond between brothers in arms or served some other end, pagan morality often had little negative to say about pedophilia (and Islamic cultures may tolerate it)."
On the Horizon? I give you NAMBLA.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My wife works. Has since the kids were raised (and off and on as they were growing up depending on what shifts I was working) and has interests and political beliefs different from mine, if even less libertarian. She went from a Clinton voter to hard right faster than a semi with a blown passenger side steer tire. She didn't produce babies for me, but with me. Bilingual. Smart lady, marrying me being possibly the dumbest thing she's ever done.
Do you believe Vox would approve?
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@Rakeesh -
quote:Should the sole role of government and culture be in adhering to the 'biological purposes' of men and women? Which does pose an interesting question. Nowhere in the 'biological purpose' of a human being is there anything about worshipping a deity-people can procreate perfectly well without it.
As can animals. What is a human being?
quote:The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God; it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude. It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment. By his deliberate actions, the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience. Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth. With the help of grace they grow in virtue, avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven. In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.
I was a practicing Buddhist before becoming Catholic (long story.)
quote:Human beings are composed of Five Aggregates and are without a separate self. They are always in the process of change – constantly being born and constantly dying. They are empty of self and without a separate existence. The mind is the source of all confusion, and the body the forest of all unwholesome actions.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@TomDavidson - why would I give a rat's patoot what Vox thinks about my marriage? I think he'd be fine with it actually, but I haven't asked.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What has he written that would give you the impression that he'd approve of a strong-willed, politically-active woman in the workforce?
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@Rakeesh -
You may not self-identify as a Marxist. Check you assumptions.
So you are? What, precisely?
The culture is rotten with it, just as there is quite a bit of leftover Christendom floating around with the flotsam of modernity and post-modernity, which is itself actually reversion to the mean - as in poor or inferior in quality.
It's what makes the place still liveable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah, yes, it's easy to forget how the interminable war between Christendom and Marxism informs all aspects of our society. *laugh*
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@TomDavidson - I don't know that he's written anything on the subject. I read Vox occasionally. It doesn't make me a sycophant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would you disagree with his stated views on the roles and virtues of women, then?
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@TomDavidson - at least four popes thought so. Marxism is just one more leftist philosophy. It had predecessors, and all have been vehemently against the Church specifically and Christianity generally.
If you're aware of history at all, you'd think you'd get that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: @kmbboots -
I've already decried the lavender mafia in the Church. I don't think there's any place in the church for pederasts or pedophiles or their enablers. It's a sad fact that predators hang out where the prey is.
Who decided that pederasty was immoral in the first place? Who says that consent is even necessary? Why is it necessary? Why do I care if a man wants to have sex with an (arbitrarily) underage woman or man. Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed (literally.) Aren't teens sexual beings? Why is it okay to choose to have sex with a 17 year old man but not a 19 year old man.
Your thinking is sufficiently bizarre to me that I can't tell if you are actually asking those questions or being rhetorical. I have no idea where you are trying to get to with this post.
I wasn't asking you to decry the "lavender mafia" (whatever that is supposed to mean); I was educating you on the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: @TomDavidson - at least four popes thought so. Marxism is just one more leftist philosophy. It had predecessors, and all have been vehemently against the Church specifically and Christianity generally.
If you're aware of history at all, you'd think you'd get that.
If you did, you would understand that it was the co-opting of Christianity to support the ruling classes that made it antithetical to Marxism.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
@kmbboots -
Rhetorical? Yes. Actually asking? If you want to have a go at answering, feel free. Always an interesting exercise.
Sufficiently bizarre - It's kind of been a 3 or 4 way conversation, so it's a little taxing on an middle-aged fart's mental processes.
Last post for me. Thanks for the convo so far. I have to wrap up here at work - as if I've actually been working (it's good to be the king) - I'll get back to the forum next week.
I've a full schedule of riding and, ummm, more riding to do this weekend.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. I am not nearly bored enough to answer rhetorical questions as an "exercise". Why don't you try to explain where exactly you were going with that whole thing.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: @Risuena -
quote:So what about men? Do they have to raise children and pass it on? If they don't is that a waste or their education?
Not the subject at hand, but yes. And yes. Duty to the next generation.
Hi. I'm a feminist. I don't believe everyone is the same. I do believe that women are equally as valuable as men.
And since this thread is discussing both misogyny and feminism, I thought my question about whether in your view both men and women have a duty to reproduce and pass on their 'proper' educations to the next generation was relevant.
Even if it wasn't, there's also such a thing as thread drift. No one poster can entirely control the direction of a thread.
I will say, from what you have said, I vehemently disagree with you on almost every topic.
I'm an agnostic/atheist (no, I haven't entirely made up my mind which is the most appropriate moniker). As stated, I'm a feminist. I'm well educated and underemployed. I'm also childless by choice. And I would argue that I'm am contributing to the next generation through my niece and nephew, and even without them, I am doing my best to make the world a better place. You may disagree with my actions, but I would guess that I also disagree with yours.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Looks like "No Award" beat basically every Puppy nominee.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Without even a run-off in many cases. Over 50% of voters put "No Award" above the Puppy nominees in most categories.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Of course, this *proves* it's a conspiracy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no award beats every puppy candidate
all sides declare triumphant victory
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Hard to believe such a thing exists, but here is a rather reasonable conservative perspective on Sad Puppies:
quote: At this point, the reasonable thing would have been for the Sad Puppies to state publicly that sweeping the ballot was not the intended goal of the Sad Puppies and that they would take steps (Sad Puppies 4 had already been announced) to avoid slate-sweeping next year. They did not.
At this point, the reasonable thing would have been for prominent critics of the Sad Puppies to concede that the Sad Puppies were reacting to a legitimate grievance. The insular sci-fi community is highly susceptible to favor-trading (aka “log rolling“) and the high percentage of social justice warriors in the community made an unwelcome atmosphere for conservatives or libertarians and could certainly have had an effect on the composition of the awards in recent years. They did not.
Instead, the critics of the Sad Puppies launched a truly breathtaking campaign of slander and intimidation that focused on calling the Sad Puppies campaign misogynist, racist, and homophobic. The best example of this is the Entertainment Weekly article that had to be “fixed” almost beyond recognition when Torgersen threatened a lawsuit over the obvious lies. (Original version. Current version.) As a result of these tactics, Torgersen and other Sad Puppies supporters were in absolutely no mood to concede their mistake and make concilliatory gestures. So nobody from Sad Puppies suggested that their tactic had been a mistake or made promises to alter the tactics for next year. In addition, several Sad Puppies nominees backed out of their awards when they saw how angry many in the sci-fi community were, including Marko Kloos. He pulled his novel Lines of Departure (which was really, really good and deserved to be on the slate) and as a result The Three-Body Problem was placed on the ballot instead.
And yet the Sad Puppy / Rabid Puppy tactics obviously were a mistake. First, as I said, there’s the immense problem with The Three-Body Problem not even making the ballot. Sure, taste is subjective, but this book was really, really good. More importantly, however, it’s a book that was originally published in China in 2008. You want real intellectual diversity? Well there you go: a book that is literally off the American socio-political map. Additionally, the Sad Puppies again and again defended many of their choices (like Kevin J. Anderson’s The Dark Between the Stars) by referring to the author rather than the work. Best novel is an award for best novel. It’s not some kind of lifetime achievement award. So the repeated references to Anderson’s contribution to the genre (he’s written over 100 books) were not only irrelevant, but a real give-away that the Sad Puppies 3 slate had basically no serious thought behind it. It was just a haphazard collection of books a few of the Sad Puppies folks had happened to read last year, without sufficient regard for quality of the individual works.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Depends on your definition of "reasonable", I guess.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Not frothing at the mouth? A willingness to admit that maybe the other side actually has a point? Compared to the stuff on Torgenson's or Correia's website, that was quite reasonable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Reasonable compared to "frothing at the mouth" I will concede. Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Depends on your definition of "reasonable", I guess.
The entire blog post was more reasonable IMO.
What I'm getting out of this, is that I should read "The Three Body Problem".
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
You have to understand, Correia and Torgersen are basic run of the mill gun culture Republicans who got mobbed by people calling them Nazis and white supremacists. I think his claim that there was a campaign of slander is entirely fair.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you're a loud-mouthed reactionary willing to team up with Theodore Beale, you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The thing is, from what I can tell they just didn't vet VD before they added him to the team (actually, he was only ever on the team when Correia was running it, so it's probably not fair to say that Torgersen "teamed up" with him at all). But once Correia had already involved Day, people sent him links to the crazy shit Day said, and Correia started rationalizing his decision by saying VD isn't so bad.
I don't think it would have worked out this way if he'd known about VD's views beforehand.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
And yeah, I do think loud-mouthed reactionaries deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to calling them Nazis and racists.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Did they team up with him though? I got the impression that Beale just kind of copied them, but in a worse way/is legit crazy, and they all get lumped together thanks to Beale getting his slate on there, and the SP stuff just happened to overlap.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
During Sad Puppies 2, Beale was on the slate, and Correia did sort of co-plan some aspects of the process with Beale.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And both Brad and Larry have spoken in Beale's defense (of both his tactics and his views.) Their position has largely been "oh, he's not so awful once you get to know him." Which, to be fair, is sort of the opposite of what I'm hearing from people who know Torgersen: that they thought he was nice enough until they really got the chance to hear him.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Has anyone else here read "Three Body Problem?" I'm kinda curious what Americans (or Canadians for that matter) think of it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I read a sample chapter from it before release that was full of people telling each other what they all already knew. It seemed so amateurish to me that I never bothered reading any more. The rest could be brilliant but that turned me off hard.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
To be clear, I wasn't a fan of it. But I'm curious if other people didn't like it for the same reasons (or if they liked/didn't like it for completely different reasons).
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Putting Beale on the slate backs up their assertion that they are picking good stories* and ignoring who the author is and their politics. Co-planning stuff with him, and backing up views not so much (well, I guess it depends on which ones, but not the ones I've heard repeated, that's for sure). And that undermines the idea in my first sentence that including him is objective.
*I've never read any of Beale's stories.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My problem with Nathaniel Givens's analysis is that he repeatedly lumps the "Puppies" together. He says that Correia and Torgersen get unfair treatment, and at least in the case of the EW article he's right, but I can't help but feel that Givens is also taking a lot of the anti Rabid Puppies hate and saying it's not fair to the Sad Puppies.
The SP aren't malicious, and aren't nearly as odious as Beale/RP. But they have acted pretty stupid throughout this mess, and deserve plenty of criticism. At the very least, the SP should have acknowledged by now that it doesn't look like the "SJW" crowd had been slate voting the way the Ps did, but I haven't seen them admit they manipulated the awards much more thoroughly than anyone else ever has, and that the trends they don't like actually represent voters' *preferences*, however (as the Ps view them) identity politics-based they might be.
I think Givens has the same problem - he's saying there was a legitimate grievance, but he's not articulating the difference between what he sees as "SJW" trends in Hugo nominations and organized manipulation.
I do think the EW article (original version) was incredibly sloppy, and unworthy of such a paragon of journalism. ( ). But since that's the only evidence offered of unfair treatment against the SP, the rest of the blog also seems pretty sloppy, since it doesn't really do an adequate job of backing up assertions with evidence while keeping distinctions between SP and RP clear.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For starters:
"At this point, the reasonable thing would have been for prominent critics of the Sad Puppies to concede that the Sad Puppies were reacting to a legitimate grievance. The insular sci-fi community is highly susceptible to favor-trading (aka “log rolling“) and the high percentage of social justice warriors in the community made an unwelcome atmosphere for conservatives or libertarians and could certainly have had an effect on the composition of the awards in recent years. They did not."
This is only reasonable in the way it would be reasonable to concede that black people sitting at whites only lunch counters made an unwelcome atmosphere for racists. While true, it is hardly a bad thing.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
kmbboots, I think the author (and a great many other puppies) see themselves as the black people. They just want to sit at the counter and all the "SJW" are the ones getting uncomfortable. Conservatives just show up and then get heckled and harrassed or have people pick fights with them. These stories mever have the conservatives doing anything offensive.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the truth of their stories since they repeatedly demonstrate a total lack of self-awareness. They might think they didn't do anything abrasive or annoying but I'm not sure they would be able to tell.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They have owned the lunch counters for generations. Their gripe is that they have to share them now.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I'm somewhat skeptical of the truth of their stories since they repeatedly demonstrate a total lack of self-awareness.
That is a fair point... but on the other hand, the behavior I've seen from left-wing fandom online makes the stories seem very believable (I'm a leftie btw).
quote:But since that's the only evidence offered of unfair treatment against the SP, the rest of the blog also seems pretty sloppy, since it doesn't really do an adequate job of backing up assertions with evidence while keeping distinctions between SP and RP clear.
I agree with you that the article conflates SP and RP quite a bit.
However, it's very easy to find more misrepresentations of a similar sort. From the recent NPR coverage of the Hugos:
quote:NPR – “’Sad Puppies’ Fail To Stuff Ballot Box At Hugo Awards”
AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:
There was no love for puppies at this weekend’s Hugo Awards. The sad puppies are a group who say the fan-chosen science fiction and fantasy awards have become too liberal and inclusive, so they nominated their own slate of candidates. And as NPR’s Petra Mayer reports, Hugo voters had other ideas.
PETRA MAYER, BYLINE: Over the past few years, more Hugo awards have been going to women and writers of color. The sad puppies – mostly white, mostly male – came together as a backlash. Right now it’s relatively easy to get a work on the Hugo ballot, so the puppy slate pretty much took over this year, causing months of controversy. But when it came time to hand out the iconic silver rocket ship trophies on Saturday night, Hugo voters chose to give no award in five puppy-packed categories, including best novella and best short story.
The night’s big winner was Chinese author Liu Cixin, whose book “The Three Body Problem” was the first work in translation to win the Hugo for best novel. Award organizers have now approved a rules change aimed at making it harder to nominate slates, though, it won’t take effect for two years. Petra Mayer, NPR News.
The Sad Puppy leaders have never said they have a problem with women and POC getting more nominations. They have a problem with what they see as politically biased nominations and voting.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They have owned the lunch counters for generations. Their gripe is that they have to share them now.
White guys have owned them, yes. Republicans, no. Conservatism has never been an especially popular thing in SF, and its popularity is at an all-time low right now.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
They seem to believe that they're trying to share the counter but "SJW" aren't letting them.
ETA: And they're quite offended that people suggest they aren't willing to share.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Sad Puppy leaders have never said they have a problem with women and POC getting more nominations. They have a problem with what they see as politically biased nominations and voting.
Yes, they truly are whiny babies with no sense of perspective, aren't they?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I have more sympathy for the whiny babies than the rabid activists on the other side, if we're comparing that way.
There are reviewers for major SF magazines saying "It is no coincidence that my book review column features no white male authors.," (Sunil Patel, Lightspeed) and "I Challenge You to Stop Reading White, Straight, Cis Male Authors for One Year" (Tempest Bradford, XOJane and The Guardian). That is genuine discrimination. And there are many, many fans who've come out and said their consciences won't allow them to vote for an award for a story written by a conservative. It's a toxic environment they've created.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
And anyway, my point in quoting NPR was not to establish that the SPs are right, but to establish that they are being misrepresented by their opponents at every turn.
(Correia and Torgersen are also trying to misrepresent their opponents in much the same way--tar all leftists with the "crazy SJW" brush--but they haven't been as successful at it.)
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
One of the frustrating things about following this is how quickly people adapt it into their pre-existing narratives. I'm inclined to blame the puppies since they initiated this conflict in context of the culture wars but I wish opposing commentators didn't follow them so gleefully.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I just wish the people in this conflict made reasonable arguments against the things their opponents actually say. But that's a lot easier when it's individual people in an argument, rather than big online coalitions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
GRR Martin, though, has been very good about actually responding to what the Sad Puppies are saying without getting them mixed up with the Rabid ones.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Eric Flint, likewise.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Absolutely. If anything, Flint's posts have been even better than GRRM's.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There is still a miscommunication problem in those two cases, though, although it's nobody's fault. Martin and Flint are liberals of an earlier age. In my opinion, they don't really grasp how toxic the social justice movement has become.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That is genuine discrimination.
Indeed it is. I wouldn't call it "rabid activism," however. I would call it openly admitting to deliberate bias in favor of a specific goal. Which is something like 1000% more honest than anything either of the Puppies tried to pull off.
Do you think you need to be a "crazy SJW" to make the deliberate decision, as a reviewer, to only review books that represent what you believe are historically underrepresented positions or viewpoints?
Because here's the thing: the Puppies aren't going to have an impact on reviewers who, for whatever reason, are consciously ignoring their fiction. Such reviewers are deliberately limiting their scope, in the same way that someone who deliberately reviews only indie games is not going to review, say, the latest Call of Duty. If EA were to suddenly flip out about the existence of indie game reviewers and complain that Metacritic scores of indie games are trending higher than the latest Gears of War, it would be equivalent to what the Sad Puppies claim to be doing.
What this whole kerfluffle has made crystal clear to me is that people who are paranoid and poisoned about "social justice" are just tired retreads of those idiots who complained about "political correctness" in the late '80s.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Do you think you need to be a "crazy SJW" to make the deliberate decision, as a reviewer, to only review books that represent what you believe are historically underrepresented positions or viewpoints?
Let's be clear: Not positions or viewpoints. Races and genders. (Perhaps you just mean social positions and viewpoints "from a social location," though.)
If you write a blog on underrepresented voices, or a special review column that is set aside for underrepresented works, it's fine to do this.
If you write the only review column for a major magazine that purports to cater to the whole SF&F audience, no, I don't think it's appropriate.
And in Bradford's case, keep in mind, it wasn't just "I will only review work by certain types of authors," it was "I will only read work by certain types of authors, and so should you."
In general, I think a better and more ethical way to raise exposure for underrepresented people is to review their work proportionately (or maybe a bit more than proportionately) in venues where everybody gets a shot. But don't set a lockstep rule of refusing to review others.
I know this doesn't settle the argument by itself, but it really is relevant that writing a "whites only" review column would be wrong. Fighting systematic oppression is important, but not at the price of discrimination.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What this whole kerfluffle has made crystal clear to me is that people who are paranoid and poisoned about "social justice" are just tired retreads of those idiots who complained about "political correctness" in the late '80s.
Have you read about Requires Hate and RaceFail09??
http://fanlore.org/wiki/RaceFail_'09 - this is a social justice-skewed narrative of what happened, but if you read carefully you will find that the real bad behavior that started the whole thing came from SJ people attacking Jay Lake and Elizabeth Bear for their very reasonable comments
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I mean, I support affirmative action, but the solution to the problem of underrepresented minorities isn't "from now on no white males can get into Harvard."
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I thought those were mostly internal to the "social justice movement." Since the puppies are determined to be outsiders, those sorts of circular firing squads aren't something they need to worry about.
And if there were enough reviewers refusing to cover white males that they were in danger of going uncovered then your metaphorical solution would be valid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Requires Hate is a freakish troll, Destineer, and has as little impact on the concept of "social justice" as Vox Day has on the concept of "religious conservative." (It should be noted that RH primarily preys on liberals; actual conservatives are almost never targets.) I can match you outlier for offensive outlier long before we run out of offensive outliers opposed to "social justice," I promise you.
quote:I support affirmative action, but the solution to the problem of underrepresented minorities isn't "from now on no white males can get into Harvard."
Serious question: why couldn't it be? If it were your highest priority to see this sort of thing equalized, why would this be an unreasonable part of the solution?
And, of course, that question contains within itself the real issue: that if equality is your highest priority, other things are going to suffer. Presumably equality is not your highest priority, so you will see injustice where someone fighting for equality will see an acceptable cost. And this is fine. It's not actually unexpected or unreasonable or insane. It is perfectly fine for people to disagree about the priorities of our society. Nor is it unreasonable for someone who feels victimized by our society to care more about eliminating that victimization and tearing down the framework that permitted it than someone who has -- at minimum -- not suffered as a result of that framework.
Let 'em rant. We're a long, long way from a world where "social justice" is in a position to do measurable harm.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Requires Hate is a freakish troll, Destineer, and has as little impact on the concept of "social justice" as Vox Day has on the concept of "religious conservative."
RH still has several prominent defenders, including Tempest Bradford, last I read.
quote:Serious question: why couldn't it be? If it were your highest priority to see this sort of thing equalized, why would this be an unreasonable part of the solution?
If your highest priority was equality, and nothing else mattered to you, I suppose you could kill all white people and all rich people. That would completely "solve" the problem.
Conclusion: if equality is really someone's highest priority, above all else, that person is morally bankrupt. Equality has to be one goal among others. And one goal that should not be completely thrown under the bus is fairness and non-discrimination.
quote:Let 'em rant. We're a long, long way from a world where "social justice" is in a position to do measurable harm.
I disagree. They did measurable harm to Jay Lake and Elizabeth Bear, and Patrick and Theresa Nielsen-Hayden, during RaceFail. Yes, these are a few individuals, but they matter. Just like the harm Vox Day did to NK Jemisin matters.
As people of conscience on the left, we have to be better than the Correias and Torgersens who look the other way when Vox Day goes nuts and say "Let him rant."
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:I disagree. They did measurable harm to Jay Lake and Elizabeth Bear, and Patrick and Theresa Nielsen-Hayden, during RaceFail. Yes, these are a few individuals, but they matter. Just like the harm Vox Day did to NK Jemisin matters.
Yet they never go on about Social Justice Warriors. Or how there's an ongoing conspiracy to keep them from getting awards or blacklist them or whatever. Not to mention the Nielsen-Haydens are considered to be prominent members of the "social justice movement."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I think the Nielsen-Haydens realized that it's safer and easier just to shut up if you're not going to toe the most radical party line.
I agree that talk of a conspiracy is bonkers. But there are very many individual fans who are not going to give conservative authors a fair hearing come award time. We have to be realistic about that.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Neither of those assertions seem particularly provable. Conservative authors do get nominated for Hugos and some ridiculously liberal authors never get nominated. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that it's more about what authors write than authors being on the right.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I agree that talk of a conspiracy is bonkers. But there are very many individual fans who are not going to give conservative authors a fair hearing come award time. We have to be realistic about that.
Of course there are. There are also many conservative fans who will not give a more liberal or diverse author a fair shake come awards time.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Neither of those assertions seem particularly provable. Conservative authors do get nominated for Hugos and some ridiculously liberal authors never get nominated. I think it's far more reasonable to assume that it's more about what authors write than authors being on the right.
I'm not sure that's wrong, but I'm also not sure that Correia and Torgersen are wrong about discrimination. Certainly there were examples of people during Sad Puppies 2 who said they couldn't separate the author from the work and would vote against Correia's novel because Correia was a bigot. (Difficult thing to google, so I can't find the examples ready to hand, but I definitely read some people saying this.)
As far as PNH and TNH go, you're right that this is my guess, but if you read what they wrote during RaceFail it's clear that they felt they were being treated unfairly by SJ fans. There really is no good way to respond to an online mob except to apologize and pretend you agree with your attackers.
I believe they are serious about SJ, but they're also not as radical as many online fans are, so I think they now keep some of their views to themselves in self-defense.
quote:Of course there are. There are also many conservative fans who will not give a more liberal or diverse author a fair shake come awards time.
Absolutely. And the conservative fans are outnumbered by the liberal ones, and the good conservative authors are outnumbered by the good liberal authors, and that is the environment we find ourselves in. I don't claim to know the net effect of all this, but it may well be to rig the awards against conservatives. I doubt it's rigging the awards against liberals.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:RH still has several prominent defenders, including Tempest Bradford, last I read.
How are you defining "prominent?" Because Tempest Bradford references are themselves pretty damn inside baseball.
quote:Conclusion: if equality is really someone's highest priority, above all else, that person is morally bankrupt.
Why? Would you say the same if someone's highest priority were compassion? Or politeness?
I think a much better rule of thumb is this: if you are willing to sacrifice other principles for the sake of your highest principle, you should be especially careful to ensure that you are not doing so in error.
quote:They did measurable harm to Jay Lake and Elizabeth Bear...
What metric are you using to measure that harm? Bear lost no sales. She had no upcoming awards or appearances spiked. She had to put up with stupid people insulting her on Twitter.
quote:But there are very many individual fans who are not going to give conservative authors a fair hearing come award time.
I....I honestly don't know how you can ultimately call that a real problem that people should worry about.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But there are very many individual fans who are not going to give conservative authors a fair hearing come award time.
I....I honestly don't know how you can ultimately call that a real problem that people should worry about. [/QB]
Because a literary award should be given based on the literary merit of the work!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:What metric are you using to measure that harm? Bear lost no sales. She had no upcoming awards or appearances spiked. She had to put up with stupid people insulting her on Twitter.
You're right, she didn't suffer career consequences. (Elizabeth Moon, on the other hand...)
By starting SP2, Correia made it political. Or at least, reinforced whatever politics already existed. Though I agree there are people who refuse to support authors solely due to their politics. I just don't think that group is decisive in nominations or voting.
ETA: I think it's safe to say online mobbing is usually bad.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Because a literary award should be given based on the literary merit of the work!
*blink* Is there anyone on Earth who really, truly believes that the Hugos are reliably awarded to the works with the most literary merit in a given category? Or who thinks that "literary merit" is something that voters can use a consistent metric to determine?
quote:But it sounds like you need to read Jon Ronson's writings about the effects of online mobbing...
And yet, you'll notice, those things did not actually happen to Elizabeth Bear.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:*blink* Is there anyone on Earth who really, truly believes that the Hugos are reliably awarded to the works with the most literary merit in a given category? Or who thinks that "literary merit" is something that voters can use a consistent metric to determine?
No, but that's the ideal, and the more the voters depart from the ideal, the more they are messing up the award. It used to be more based on literary merit than it is now, in my opinion.
quote:And yet, you'll notice, those things did not actually happen to Elizabeth Bear.
Except the part about the months of hellish stress.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
It's worth noting that there's almost always been disagreement about what constitutes "literary merit".
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Of course. But no sane person would say that literary merit depends on the author's party affiliation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But no sane person would say that literary merit depends on the author's party affiliation.
Interestingly, though, I think a lot of people would say that "literary merit" often does depend upon the author's choice of subject matter and willingness to challenge or rethink orthodoxy. Certainly in spec fic.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
That's my view as well! But I think we're also getting to the point in Western culture where some of the orthodoxies that might be worth challenging are left-wing orthodoxies (including ones that I myself agree with).
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: That's my view as well! But I think we're also getting to the point in Western culture where some of the orthodoxies that might be worth challenging are left-wing orthodoxies (including ones that I myself agree with).
If by "Western culture" you mean Tumblr, then we're in full agreement. If you mean anything else, you must be from a parallel universe.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
as is the case when OSC occasionally goes on rants about the "politically correct inquisition", I often wonder what sort of uber-liberal microcosm one must exist in that that imagining remotely intersects with reality. I'm imagining, like, a Freshman Art Appreciation class at UCLA writ large or something.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Oh, I have met these people. They live on the Facebook alum group for my college. The tough thing about is that they aren't necessarily wrong in many of their opinions, including the one where telling someone who is airing a serious greivance is being rude distracts from the larger issue presented, and is hurtful for that person (aka tone policing). However, they don't always seem to understand that you will go a lot a further if you treat someone who is wrong with dignity, or that just because they are on the side of angels, doesn't mean they can't be a jerk. On the other hand, people should be respected, and a lot of horrible (racist, sexist, homophobic, trasphobic, anti-semetic) things have been said that prevent people from feeling like they belong to the group. And it is worth pointing out, that many minority groups have to worry for their personal safety in ways the majority never notice (privilege). The number of horrible people is as small as the number of consistent jerks, but it makes for a rather large amount of drama.
I think the puppies might have had a better time pushing their agenda if they made it entirely about the stories they liked, and not the ones they didn't.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: as is the case when OSC occasionally goes on rants about the "politically correct inquisition", I often wonder what sort of uber-liberal microcosm one must exist in that that imagining remotely intersects with reality. I'm imagining, like, a Freshman Art Appreciation class at UCLA writ large or something.
I'm an academic Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
What I'm getting out of this, is that I should read "The Three Body Problem".
Well I still haven't read it due to the issues I mentioned earlier but I thought I would honor Marko Kloos' (Kloos's?) stand of withdrawing from the nomination by reading his series. I got tired of this kind of military scifi years ago but I quite enjoyed it. Definitely NOT Hugo worthy IMO but still an enjoyable read. A fast read too. I read all three books in 2 1/2 days.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I had trouble getting into the Three Body Problem too... read the Kindle preview of it and found it very info-dumpy, with extremely clunky dialogue.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: as is the case when OSC occasionally goes on rants about the "politically correct inquisition", I often wonder what sort of uber-liberal microcosm one must exist in that that imagining remotely intersects with reality. I'm imagining, like, a Freshman Art Appreciation class at UCLA writ large or something.
I'm an academic
My condolences.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I did read Ancillary Justice while waiting for the Three Body Problem to come in from the library. There was a ship on the cover. The main character is a ship. SF isn't dead.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I did read Ancillary Justice while waiting for the Three Body Problem to come in from the library. There was a ship on the cover. The main character is a ship. SF isn't dead.
Yeah but, but, but, there were no "he"s in it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I thought that was an excellent book, and the way it handled gender was very interesting (although perhaps Breq's bumbling with it was a bit too exaggerated). It also did fun things with POV without messing up, as well as cognitive dissonance.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
As a machine though, I'd expect Breq not to get it. I think she notes that even the Radch, who don't distinguish in language still know. It sort of reminds me of learning French and German, where inanimate objects have gender, all of the natives just know it, it's not intuitively obvious, an object's gender differs between languages, there are good cues from the way the word sounds, but there are exceptions (even in Spanish, were it's obvious with the o/a thing, unless the word is el agua).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)