Two tribes and an alien invasion

Brad Torgersen explains his view of tribalism in science fiction:

The Hugos (and the Worldcon tribe alike) brand the Hugo as the award for the entirety of SF/F: books, stories, movies, television, music, art, you name it. This is not just the totem of the single SF/F tribe. This is the totem of all the SF/F tribes.

But the single tribe (Worldcon) wants the exclusive right to decide how the totem gets distributed — to which tribe members, and for what kinds of work.

It’s the totem of all, but to be decided by only some.

That — right there — is the root of the conflict. Totem of of all, decided by some. Sad Puppies 3 (and to a certain extent, Sad Puppies 2 and Sad Puppies 1) made the audacious claim that the totem for all, should be decided by all. Anyone willing to pay the poll tax (Worldcon membership) should have a say. We invited everyone to the democratic process. We didn’t care who was or was not in the “tribe” of World Science Fiction Society. This is the totem of all! And the rules pretty much make it so that all can participate!

But the Worldcon tribe — or at least certain vocal members within the tribe — have gone full-retard-tribal about the affront to “their” award, and “their” convention. So it’s tribe-vs-tribe. Are you in-tribe or out-tribe? How can anyone tell? Are you “of the body” of the tribe? Were you inculcated? No? Then what the hell are you doing coming to our tribal ground and fucking with our totem? It’s ours, dammit! Not yours! Ours!!

Protestations about propriety are merely bureaucratic dressing for tribal reactionary mud-slinging.

Mud-slinging which was taken to the broader media by a few tribe-members determined to “nuke” us invaders: Sad Puppies.

But not just us alone. We were almost incidental. The partisans of the Worldcon tribe had a more serious foe in mind.

Because of all the things most frightening to the Worldcon tribe, the worst are the Visigoths of Vox Day. Not just an out-tribe, Vox and his fans represent an explicitly war-like and hostile tribe, come to seize the totem by brute means. So, some of the Worldcon tribe said, “No, we will destroy the totem first, before we let the Visigoths have it!” To which the Visigoths and their heathen king Vox replied, “If you destroy it this year, we will most certainly destroy it next year — and there is nothing you can do to stop us!”

Now, the heathen king is terrifying to the Worldcon tribe. He is a literal barbarian. He talks and walks and threatens like a barbarian. He’s not precisely the guy anyone planned on walking through the democratic door. But because the Hugo voting process is democratic, nobody can be barred for purely tribal reasons. You pay your poll tax, you get a vote. The Worldcon tribe stares at both Sad Puppies 3 and the Rabid Puppies with equal dismay.

Brad’s analogy makes sense, for the most part, but it misses one crucial detail because he is not of the Rabid Puppies. We’re not the barbarians. As it happens, they are. We are a foreign culture, possibly less numerous, but with much better technology, discipline, and foresight. We appear hostile and warlike, to be sure, but only because our thinking and objectives are entirely alien to them. Not only do they not understand us, but they have not even made any effort to do so. Nor would it likely avail them much if they did, if this reaction by one member of the Worldcon tribe is any indication:

I think you really hit the nail on the head about tribalism. While I don’t feel tribalism in general about everyone different from me politically, I have felt very strong fear and vile about… that other guy, you know, the one who you won’t (and shouldn’t) unperson. 🙂 I have spent a lot of time on his blog and, to be frank, it terrifies me. It made me feel sick yet I couldn’t stop reading. I began going through his historical archives and a lot of his views on suffrage and marital relationships, in particular, made me feel nauseous. And what is the kneejerk reaction when someone like that makes us so sick… ban them, shun them, etc. And I think that is why GRRM asks you that question. Because He Who Should Not be Named isn’t just the “other side”, but someone who openly espouses, IMO, horrible, horrible views. I know he says that he doesn’t, but I can’t help but define his statements as misogynistic and racist.

Yet, the more I’ve thought about it, and read your words, I guess if you truly are going to be inclusive, that voice has the right to be heard as well, no matter how much it may scare or bother us. I personally believe that if we were to stop shouting about him as much or shouting at him and just back off and let him come and do what he wants, he actually would, in a way, “lose” some of his power.

When I said fear, I was trying to be more general of all of us on the left “side” but I’ll try to be more clear. I guess I fear the fact that such… Nasty sentiments still exist in this day and age. It’s hard for me to comprehend. It’s not just his views… It’s the very insulting terminology he uses. And again, this is from actually reading years worth of his posts. The comparisons to training a wife like an animal, insulting the physical features of women he deems unattractive, he is a very mean, cruel person and I feel fear that those mindsets and hateful way of speaking still exists. He also seems to feel pride in his hateful words.

For what it’s worth, I’ve also spent a lot of time reading Wright’s blog. Like I said, I was determined to do my research and not just repeat what others have said. In terms of Wright, I actually agree with you. While I obviously don’t agree with a lot of his views, I didn’t find him to be purposely mean at all. As you said, hate the sin, love the sinner. I have actually seen that Christian mindset in him, Brad, and others. Nothing about VD comes off as Christian. He is mean to people, plain and simple. Nothing to do with just disagreeing, he goes out of his way to call people fat, ugly women look like a tranny, and way too many other numerous comments. It actually emotionally hurt reading many of his blogs. I never felt that way reading Brad, Larry, or Wright, even if I didn’t agree with their view….

I have no real, actual complaint. I was just speaking of my perceptions.

Despite her pain and fear, the commenter is, surprisingly enough, correct for the most part. Silencing us is not an option. They have no power to do so. Shouting at us is pointless. We don’t listen to them or care what they say. Shouting about us is also pointless. That only spreads our message and wins us more sympathy within their own tribe and among their allies.

They’re in the position of Flatlanders attempting to defend against an opponent operating in three dimensions. We can come at them any time we want from directions they don’t even know exist. But we don’t need to come at them at all. We have our own objectives that they would not credit even if we explained them fully and in detail; they can no more grasp them than a Flatlander can comprehend a cube.

For example, I have repeatedly stated for more than a year now that I have no particular interest in the Hugo Awards. I still don’t. Had they simply voted my work last year into last place and left it at that, I would never have even looked at the Worldcon rules. But once I was accused of gaming the system to obtain a 6 of 5 reward, I naturally decided to take a look at them. The rest, everyone knows.

The Dread Ilk are not a barbarian tribe that wants to take the land of the Worldcon tribe. We are an advanced foreign civilization that is simply going about its business in what naturally appears to be an inexplicable manner. We’re quite content to leave the primitives alone so long as they stay out of our way, but if a few of them decide to loose arrows at us as we work, we will respond with lasers and cobalt bombs without even thinking twice about it. Or paying any attention to the collateral damage.

My advice to the Worldcon community is very simple: don’t dig the hole deeper. Don’t scream at us, don’t insult us, don’t “send a message”, just settle down and do what you’ve always done and vote for whatever works you find to be the best, or the least offensive. Smile and politely do your jazz hands if a few of ours happen to claim the totem this year. We have no intention of camping the Hugos unless you give us a reason to do so. I have absolutely no desire to ever have as many Hugo nominations as Arthur C. Clarke, let alone Robert Heinlein or Isaac Asimov, but annoy me enough and I promise you that I will end up with more than David Hartwell and Mike Glyer combined.

There is nothing to stop the Worldcon tribe from continuing to double-down until it is destroyed entirely. It’s their call. The situation rather reminds me of a conflict I once had with a very large, wealthy and arrogant publisher. All they had to do was send me a letter. A one-page letter. Nothing more. But they wouldn’t, for various reasons that mostly have to do with pride. They firmly believed that there was no way that two young game designers in Minnesota could do anything about it.

Eighteen months later, they gave me the letter, a very large check, and not long after, went out of business. All I wanted was a letter. And I got the letter, unfortunately, I had to publicly eviscerate a large publicly-traded company in order to get it. Plus hundreds of thousands of dollars for my trouble. Whether the Worldcon tribe stands down or doubles-down is largely irrelevant to me. I will achieve my objectives in either case. But I really would prefer to minimize any unnecessary collateral damage.


Accepted

An apology:

Marko Kloos, on April 16, 2015 at 1:32 am said:
On reflection: I apologize to Vox Day for calling him a shitbag. I loathe his politics and race diatribes, disagree with his theology, and have absolutely nothing in common with him philosophically, but there’s no reason to get uncivil and resort to name-calling.

It’s worth noting for the record that this marks the first apology I have ever received from an author in the science fiction community since my nationally syndicated op/ed column first came to the attention of Teresa Nielsen Hayden in March 2005.

There are many on the left who believe the mere fact that my beliefs exist and I dare to openly express them comprise a sufficient provocation in themselves, but it is as ridiculous to claim that being scientifically literate, historically aware, and logically correct can justify uncivility and name-calling as it would be to insist that I have the right to attack others in a vulgar manner simply because they happen to subscribe to Keynesian economics or advocate gun control.

So, rather than concerning yourself with the minutiae of Mr. Kloos’s apology or his decision to withdraw his nomination, reflect upon the difference between his actions and the actions of those with whom he makes his philosophical home. It took him less than four hours to do what many others have not done in more than ten years. So don’t hold it against him. I certainly won’t.

On an unfortunately tangential note, two more people have responded to Glenn Hauman’s call for posting fake reviews on Amazon. Jeromy Stone has posted a fake review of Mr. Wright’s AWAKE IN THE NIGHT LAND, of all things:

One Star
By jeromy stone on April 15, 2015
Format: Hardcover
trash

You know the drill. Report for Abuse and Inappropriate Content. The more strongly we respond to these attacks, the more likely it is that Amazon will eventually step in and do something serious about it.

Ugggggggh!

By phangirl on April 15, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition
Wow.
Call me underwhelmed. If you like purple prose, this is the book for
you. Bad writing plus bad editing makes for a bad book. Don’t waste your
money on this dog.

As phangirl is a fan of Jim C. Hines, I ask Mr. Hines to make a statement to his readers concerning his opinion of posting fake one-star reviews of other authors’ works on Amazon. I have no doubt that Mr. Hines opposes the practice, out of sheer common sense if nothing else, and I hope that he will see fit to tell phangirl and his other fans to cease and desist such antics. Meanwhile, Mark Rogers has posted a fake review of RIDING THE RED HORSE, as well as of three other Castalia House works all of them today.

One Star
By Mark Rogers on April 16, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition
Hateful drivel. Nazis will love it

I’m contacting Amazon today to ask them to investigate Glenn Hauman’s call for fake reviews. It is readily apparent that his malicious attempt to harm Castalia House’s business is having real and material effects on our book reviews and I note there is legal precedent in the UK addressing compensation for such activities. My personal opinion is that Amazon should not permit authors who post fake reviews or encourage others to do so to sell their books on Amazon. It will be interesting to learn Amazon’s opinion of the matter, considering that they recently sued some companies that provide fake reviews.

Here are five more posted yesterday by J. Carnell of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Hauman can disingenuously attempt to deny whatever he likes, but the fact is that he made the call and a number of fake reviewers promptly responded by posting fake reviews. It should be a simple manner to show that all of the fake reviewers read his call and responded to it, especially since at least one of those fake reviewers writes for the same site upon which he posted it.

So, Mr. Hauman, if you send me an email admitting that you called for fake reviews to be posted, apologizing for doing so, and asking both Amazon and your readers to take down the fake reviews posted after your piece entitled What Do You Do To Rabid Puppies? (Answer Below.), I will post it here, and the matter will be considered closed as soon as the fake reviews come down.


Annie Bellet withdraws

One of the 2015 Hugo nominees has withdrawn her short story from consideration:

I have withdrawn my story “Goodnight Stars” from consideration in this year’s Hugo Awards.

I want to make it clear I am not doing this lightly. I am not doing it because I am ashamed. I am not doing it because I was pressured by anyone either way or on any “side,” though many friends have made cogent arguments for both keeping my nomination and sticking it out, as well as for retracting it and letting things proceed without me in the middle.

I am withdrawing because this has become about something very different than great science fiction. 

 As has 2015 Best Novel nominee Marko Kloos.

It has come to my attention that “Lines of Departure” was one of the nomination suggestions in Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Therefore—and regardless of who else has recommended the novel for award consideration—the presence of “Lines of Departure” on the shortlist is almost certainly due to my inclusion on the “Rabid Puppies” slate. For that reason, I had no choice but to withdraw my acceptance of the nomination. I cannot in good conscience accept an award nomination that I feel I may not have earned solely with the quality of the nominated work.

I also wish to disassociate myself from the originator of the “Rabid Puppies” campaign. To put it bluntly: if this nomination gives even the appearance that Vox Day or anyone else had a hand in giving it to me because of my perceived political leanings, I don’t want it. I want to be nominated for awards because of the work, not because of the “right” or “wrong” politics.

As to anyone feeling betrayed by this, don’t be. Leave them alone and respect their decision; do not criticize them for it. Regardless of why they chose to withdraw, that is their right and their choice, and it is neither a problem nor a concern of ours.

UPDATE: Marko Kloos wasn’t quite so judicious on Facebook, apparently.

My withdrawal has nothing to do with Larry Correia or Brad Torgersen. I don’t know Brad personally, but Larry is a long-time online acquaintance and friend. We’ve known each other since before our writing days. I have no issue with Larry or the Sad Puppies. I’m pulling out of the Hugo process solely because Vox Day also included me on his “Rabid Puppies” slate, and his RP crowd provided the necessary weight to the ballot to put me on the shortlist. I think Vox Day is a shitbag of the first order, and I don’t want any association with him, especially not a Hugo nomination made possible by his followers being the deciding factor. That stench don’t wash off.

What is with these SF writers and their absolute preoccupation with all things excremental anyhow?


Ukraine has consequences

I’m sure the Israelis are just delighted with this particular blowback from the neocon invasion of Ukraine:

Vladimir Putin blew a geopolitical raspberry at the Obama Administration on Monday by authorizing the sale of Russia’s S-300 missile system to Iran. The Kremlin is offering the mullahs an air-defense capability so sophisticated that it would render Iran’s nuclear installations far more difficult and costly to attack should Tehran seek to build a bomb.

· Feeling better about that Iranian nuclear deal now?

· The origins of this Russian sideswipe go back to 2007, when Moscow and Tehran signed an $800 million contract for delivery of five S-300 squadrons. But in 2010 then-President Dmitry Medvedev stopped the sale under pressure from the U.S. and Israel. The United Nations Security Council the same year passed an arms-embargo resolution barring the sale of major conventional systems to the Tehran regime.

· That resolution is still in effect, but the Kremlin no longer feels like abiding by it. With the latest negotiating deadline passed and without any nuclear agreement in place, Moscow will dispatch the S-300s “promptly” to the Islamic Republic, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

· So much for the White House hope that the West could cordon off Russia’s aggression against Ukraine while working with Mr. Putin on other matters. Russia and the West could disagree about Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the thinking went, but Washington could still solicit the Kremlin’s cooperation on the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Jerry Pournelle points out that it’s not that big a deal from a practical perspective, since any denuclearization attacks would likely have to be launched before the air-defense systems could reasonably be installed anyhow. And while he’s probably right, Putin’s action is yet one more reminder of how any US foreign policy that is not based first and foremost on the US national interest is bound to have unforeseen negative consequences, even for those who wish to manipulate it for their own ends.


Interview with the devil

John Brown rather commendably decided that he should learn exactly what I thought about various issues before leaping to any conclusions or judgments about me, and asked me a number of questions on some controversial subjects:

I just had a conversation with the devil.

Well, from what people have been posting, he seemed like the devil. But I know how the internet can be. Mitt Romney at one time was the devil. Now, I think he’s been degraded in those quarters to janitor of the hot place. Yeah, that one Romney who is out raising tons of money to help fix blindness among the poorest of the poor, that evil son-of-a-gun.

So when I saw there was a new head honcho in town, I decided to see what he was all about.

I did try reading various posts on the internet, but after a dozen or so of those, I realized it would just be easier to go to the source. And so I went to Vox Day’s website and clicked the contact link, which popped up an email.

I asked Day if he’d mind answering a few questions.

He agreed.

What you will read below is our conversation, arranged for easy reading.

Why am I doing this?

Well, who doesn’t want to scoop the devil? But beyond that, I agree with George R. R. Martin: internet conversations that are not moderated to maintain a tone of respectful disagreement are a bane upon us all. Actually, Martin said they were part of the devil’s alimentary canal, but I didn’t want to confuse the topic.

So I’d read a number of posts that Day had made and others folks had made about Day and saw all the bad juju going back and forth. And I wanted to know what this guy actually believed. Once I understood that, if I disagreed, then I could disagree in a way that I think is actually productive.

We talked about some of his views on two subjects—race and women. Are his ideas provocative? Well, you need to know what they are before you decide.

I thought he was mostly fair, if lamentably inclined to harbor some strong opinions about things he admitted to knowing nothing about. I did find it mildly amusing that my position of support for women voting in universal direct democracy is somehow taken to be more limiting of the electorate than a mere disagreement over where the precise line of the restrictions inherent in so-called representative democracy are best drawn.

As for his points about the rhetoric of offense, this bit actually made me laugh:

Offense closes both parties off to challenges, biases, and ideas. It
closes them off to new information. And new information is such an
integral part of learning.

That sounds nice and all, but I have a one-word rebuttal: Aristotle. As the readers here know, Mr. Brown’s point concerning how my rhetoric “dramatically undermines his ability to get others to consider his ideas, let alone believe them” does little more than inform us of his level of communication. And as you can see, while I provided him with the requested information, it did not change his mind. This is no surprise.


Kicked out of the warren

The atheists in Ireland found that PZ Myers’s relentlessly odious and bullying style was finally too much for them to take any longer:

Atheist Ireland is publicly dissociating itself from the hurtful and
dehumanising, hateful and violent, unjust and defamatory rhetoric of the
atheist blogger PZ Myers. The final of many, many straws were his
latest smear that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is ‘happily exploiting atrocities’,
and his subsequent description of Atheist Ireland’s chairperson as ‘the
Irish wanker’…

Some examples of his hurtful and dehumanising rhetoric
 

He said that ‘the scum rose to the top of the atheist movement’, that
it is ‘burdened by cretinous reactionaries’, that ‘sexist and
misogynistic scumbags’ are ‘not a fringe phenomenon’, and that if you
don’t agree with Atheism Plus, you are an ‘Asshole Atheist’. He agreed
that science fetishism reproduces the ‘white supremacist logic of the
New Atheist Movement.’ He said ‘I officially divorce myself from the
skeptic movement,’ which ‘has attracted way too many thuggish jerks,
especially in the leadership’.

He said Richard Dawkins ‘seems to have developed a callous
indifference to the sexual abuse of children’ and ‘has been eaten by
brain parasites’, Michael Nugent is ‘the Irish wanker’ and a ‘demented
fuckwit’, Ann Marie Waters is a ‘nutter’, Russell Blackford is a ‘lying
fuckhead’, Bill Maher’s date at an event was ‘candy to decorate [her
sugar daddy’s] arm in public’, Ben Radford is a ‘revolting narcissistic
scumbag’ and his lawyer is ‘J Noble Dogshit’, Rosetta scientist Matt
Taylor and Bill Maher are ‘assholes’, and Abbie Smith and her ‘coterie
of slimy acolytes’ are ‘virtual non-entities’. He called Irish blogger
ZenBuffy a ‘narcissistic wanker,’ after she said she has experienced
mental illness….

He also employs hate speech against Christians (‘I left the theatre
filled with contempt and loathing for Christians’), apocalypse-mongers
(‘they make me furious and fill me with an angry contempt’), ‘your
average, run-of-the-mill Christian’ (‘I despise Karen Armstrong almost
as much as I do Fred Phelps’), and several people who were organising a
prayer initiative (‘Jesus Christ but I hate these slimebags’ who are
‘demented fuckwits every one.’)

He uses violent rhetoric. He said ‘I’ve got to start carrying a knife
now’ to kill Christians if they pray instead of helping him while he is
dying. He said about a meal: ‘Don’t show up to pick a fight or we’ll
pitch you off a pier.’ When a Brazilian priest died in a charity
ballooning accident, he said ‘my new dream’ will be shooting priests out
of the sky from an aircraft. When a Christian shopkeeper apologised for
offending atheists, he refused to accept the apology, saying ‘No. Fuck
him to the ground.’ He would rather debate William Lane Craig in writing
‘where I can pin him down, stick a knife in the bastard, and twist it
for a good long while’. He praised a blog post that ‘shanks Thunderf00t
in the kidneys and mocks him cruelly’.

He has encouraged his blog commenters to ‘rhetorically hand [critics]
a rotting porcupine and tell you to stuff it up your nether orifice’.
They in turn have told people to ‘put a three week old decaying
porcupine dipped in tar and broken glass up your arse sideways’, to
‘fuck yourself sideways’ with a ‘rusty chainsaw’, ‘red-hot pokers’ or a
‘rusty coat hanger’, and to ‘go die in a fire. slowly. seriously’. More
recently he said of ‘faux-Vulcan shit’ that he encourages his
commentariat to ‘draw their knives and flense it so thoroughly the
dispassionate ass is feeling the pain in every nerve ending’.

You know PZ spiraled completely out of control when not a single example of his regular hate-on for me didn’t even make the Top 40 list. I quit paying attention to him years ago, and I’m a little sorry about that because it appears we missed some quality antics during that time.

On the plus side, at least he didn’t end up selling his corpulent body in a Las Vegas brothel. It could have been worse.

There is one interesting thing here. You’ve probably noticed that all the various calls for Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, and others to disavow me are based on a very small number of cropped and ungrammatical quotes; they don’t even dare to quote a single complete sentence. And yet, there are no calls from public figures for Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to disavow PZ Myers despite there being considerably more examples of considerably more objectionable public statements.

Why might that be?


More fake reviews

This time from one Carrie Schutrick, who pretends that she’s read John C. Wright’s Book of Feasts & Seasons:

Ghastly
By Carrie Schutrick “Neon Fox”on April 14, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition
I would like to make something clear: this book gets one star only because it’s apparently been copyedited. In this day of self publishing, that’s not a given, so a lack of typos and a writer who seems to have a grasp of the use of the semicolon are things to celebrate.

The content, however, is horrifically bad. To take only one example, there’s the inexplicably Hugo-nominated story “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus”, in which a woman whose daughter has just died of cancer is granted a visitation from Saint Nicholas, and the girl is resurrected because her mother becomes Catholic enough to deserve a miracle. (And there’s a miracle Christmas tree, even though Saint Nicholas makes it a point to say that he doesn’t smoke a pipe because he lived before people started doing that. Et tu, Queen Victoria?) The perversion of Catholic doctrine around the problem of evil is…well, one hesitates to call it “blasphemy”, but I cannot think of a term that better fits.

I rather wish I had actually purchased the book, because then I could ethically burn it; it’s considered bad form to do such a thing to a book belonging to someone else.

They’re so sneaky, aren’t they, just happening to show up and post the first and only one-star reviews the very day that someone told them to do so. As before, I reported it for abuse and inappropriate content.


The International Lord of Hate fisks GRRM

The results are pretty much as you’d imagine:

MARTIN : Scalzi — look, I know Scalzi is liberal, and I know that the
Puppies seem to hate him, though I can’t for the life of me understand
why — but whatever you think of the writer’s politics, REDSHIRTS is a
light, fun, amusing SF adventure, an affectionate riff off of STAR TREK,
Ghu help us

 

CORREIA: No, I think he’s a fine of working a popularity contest.
Redshirts was a light read, but I’m on record already disagreeing about
amusing or fun and leave it at that. As for not understanding how my
side could possibly dislike this man, here is him being gracious in
victory the night last year’s final Hugo awards were announced: 

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.
John Scalzi @scalzi
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THE HUGO SLATE A REFERENDUM ON THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE FICTION (loses) THE HUGOS DON’T MATTER ANYWAY
John Scalzi @scalzi
SHUT UP I AM NOT CRYING IT’S THAT LITTLE FLECKS OF GUNPOWDER FELL INTO
MY EYEBALLS SOMEONE GET ME A FLAMING SWORD SO I CAN FLICK THEM OUT
John Scalzi @scalzi
WHO IS CALLING ME PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE I AM ALL AGGRESSIVE DON’T YOU SEE
THIS HUGE GUN I HAVE WITH ME AT ALL TIMES (breaks down, sobbing)
John Scalzi @scalzi
AND NOW I WILL IGNORE THE HUGOS AGAIN UNTIL NEXT YEAR WHEN MY FEELINGS
OF PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE INADEQUACY ANGRILY WELL UP ONCE MORE
John Scalzi @scalzi
I’VE LEARNED MY LESSON AND MY LESSON IS THAT WE DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH
PATENT RACIST SHITBAGGERY ON OUR SLATE WHAT THAT WAS GOOD WRITING MAN
John Scalzi @scalzi
ITS PROOF THAT ALL THE FEMINISTS NEED TO DO TO WIN AWARDS IS WRITE BETTER STORIES ACCORDING TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE FANS SHEEESH
John Scalzi @scalzi
I NEVER WANTED THE AWARD THAT’S WHY I’VE WHINED LIKE A KICKED DOG ABOUT IT FOR A COUPLE YEARS RUNNING.

Simply can’t imagine why my side doesn’t care for him… But
anyways, we’ve got plenty more examples of him being classy if you’d
like them.

MARTIN: I try to assist other authors (and artists, and filmmakers, and fan writers) as well, by recommending their works on my Not A Blog. Sometimes it works. More often it does not. If you do the same thing, I doubt anyone will have a problem with it.

CORREIA: They sure minded when I did that last year.

MARTIN: The backlash you are getting now is because you went way beyond that. Yes, all completely legal… but your campaign, your slate tactics, did not just get some authors you overlooked onto the ballot, it pretty much drove everyone else off the ballot. In the three short fiction categories, there are no choices but your choices (well, yours, and Brad Torgersen’s, and Vox Day’s). You say you just wanted a seat at the table. But you kicked over the table, and took ALL the seats.

CORREIA: So we obeyed all the rules, but violated the secret gentleman’s agreement you guys had in place. You know that we didn’t expect to sweep the categories. Some of the categories that were swept weren’t even because of Sad Puppies, but by Vox Day’s separate campaign that I had absolutely zero control over.

MARTIN: Your public platform was all about restoring “quality” to the
Hugos, and yet one of your standard bearers was the worst piece of
writing on the ballot. (In my opinion, of course. All of this is
opinion).

CORREIA: So, I let something you don’t like get onto the ballot, and
that destroys every other work on the ballot, and it also destroys every
other work on the ballot the next year, and I’m assuming it destroys
every work on the ballot forever. Those are some harsh double standards
you’ve got there.

But it doesn’t really matter, because Vox is off doing his
own thing. You tried to shun a man who is incapable of being shunned. He
got kicked out of the market, so went and built his own market. The
more you go after him, the stronger he gets. I don’t think you guys
realize that most of me and Brad’s communication with Vox consists of us
asking him to be nice and not burn it all down out of spite.

That’s almost entirely true. Brad and Larry understood that the Dread Ilk are formidable even as the other side was pretending that my readership is nothing but me and my imaginary wife. Although it isn’t spite that tempts me to burn it all down so much as my sheer love of chaos. Chaos always favors the fast-thinking and tactically nimble. My favorite quote from Larry was this: “I nominated Vox Day because Satan didn’t have any eligible works that period.”

Now, I know some of you are annoyed that Larry and Brad are not responding to the attacks of George Martin and other SJWs by publicly swearing blood brotherhood with me. Don’t be. They live in that community and have to find a way to abide them. We don’t. Larry and Brad are not my pack, the Dread Ilk and the Rabid Puppies are. Science fiction fandom is not my family, #GamerGate is.

They are allies. But they are not responsible for me and they have no control over me. That’s really all they are pointing out to the other side. Of course they don’t agree with me on everything, no one here does either.

One more thing. Larry also understands exactly what I am doing. This is only the beginning. We have laid the foundations for a towering structure that will one day loom over their gates and leave their walled gardens in its shadow. They don’t need to worry about us burning down their little tor. They need to worry that we won’t even see any reason to bother.


Debt and particle acceleration

This is an interesting and intriguingly simple way of explaining the debt-deflation cycle:

The scientists at CERN can create matter from nothing only if they also create its offsetting opposite anti-matter. Similarly banks are only able to create money from thin air provided they create, at the same time, the offsetting opposite amount of anti-money, otherwise known as debt.

In short our modern banks are the particle accelerators of the financial system. They conjure money and anti-money, fortunes and debts, from nothing.

It is informative to extend this analogy a little further. When particles and anti-particles are created from nothing energy is ‘consumed’ and when they later recombine to annihilate one another this energy is then re-released. There is an analogous, though opposite, process of energy capture and release associated with the creation and destruction of money and debt.

When a bank makes a loan it splits zero into a fortune (money) and its equivalent debt. This process releases new spending power into the economy producing a burst of economic energy. Conversely when, at a later date, the money is recombined to annihilate the debt, both money and debt vanish and an equivalent amount of spending power, economic energy, is withdrawn from the economy.

At any given time, if the amount of credit being created roughly balances with the amount being destroyed the spending power within the economy will remain roughly constant and the economy will be stable. On the other hand, if there is an imbalance between credit creation and credit destruction the economy will be unstable. An excess of credit creation – new money and new debt – will amplify economic activity. Conversely an excess of credit destruction – repaying old debts – will attenuate economic activity.

From the remorseless logic of Brahmagupta’s mathematics it follows, any economic boom generated by high levels of debt creation will have the seeds of its own destruction within it. These credit-creation fuelled booms will inevitably lead to their partner, a credit-destruction driven bust – otherwise known as a debt deflation cycle.

This simple way of thinking about how our monetary and banking system works helps explain what has gone wrong with monetary policy over recent years… Our own voting patterns have trained our political leaders, like Pavlov’s dog, to seek a relentless but ultimately unsustainable credit expansion. However, when policy makers seek to engineer an economic boost through credit expansion they are also, due to the mathematics of Brahmagupta, engineering a future economic slump. This helps us understand where the deflationary forces currently taking hold in the Eurozone have come from. These are, in large part, the inevitable consequence of previous monetary policy designed to engineer credit expansion.

The next time you see the term ‘Money Supply Growth’ it may be worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the ideas of an obscure 7th century Indian mathematician and think instead of the term ‘Debt Supply Growth’.

This should help explain why you simply cannot borrow or spend your way out of debt. It’s like trying to dry yourself off by jumping in the pool. It’s a logical contradiction, no matter how convincingly economists like Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman manage to dance in circles, draw epicycles, and dazzle you into thinking they are speaking anything but utter nonsense.

I think I can explain it even more simply, however. Money is a measure. And no matter how you may redefine the “inch” by making it increasingly smaller on the ruler, you do not make the object measured any longer.


John C. Wright work disqualified

Hugo Awards news from Mike Glyer at File 770:

Sasquan, the 2015 Worldcon, has made changes to the final Hugo ballot to reflect  eligibility rulings by Hugo administrator John Lorentz.

  •     “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by John C. Wright was previously published on a web site in 2013 prior to its inclusion in The Book of Feasts & Seasons in 2014, so it is not eligible for the 2015 Novelette Hugo.
  •     Jon Eno did not publish any qualifying artwork in 2014, so he is not eligible for the 2015 Professional Artist Hugo

Replacing Wright’s novelette on the ballot is “The Day The World Turned Upside Down” by Thomas Olde Heuvelt (Lightspeed Magazine, April 2014). Kirk DouPonce has been elevated to take Eno’s place in the Best Professional Artist category.

I think this is a serious mistake by Sasquan. Just as Dune and Ender’s Game served as precedents for a shorter work reworked and published as a longer one, which was the case with both “One Bright Star to Guide Them” and “Big Boys Don’t Cry”, John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War serves as precedent for a work that appeared on the web prior to being professionally published and subsequently declared eligible in the latter year.

The comparison is particularly damning because John Scalzi specifically declared Old Man’s War to have been self-published in 2002, three years prior to it being published by Tor in 2005 and being nominated as Best Novel in 2006. John C. Wright is a professional author who does not self-publish and he never claimed to have published “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus”, he merely posted a work in progress on his site and removed it after Castalia House signed a contract with him to publish it. This action by Sasquan not only makes it appear as if there is one rule for SJWs who are Torlings and another for everyone else, but will serve as a chilling precedent to other writers to avoid publicly posting any unpublished and incomplete work they believe might be award-worthy in the future.

While neither I nor Castalia House intend to protest Sasquan’s decision and we recognize their right to ignore the precedents established by previous Worldcons, I do not think the decision was a wise one, especially at a time when tempers are running unusually high. Both Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies exist because some members of the science fiction community were being treated as more equal than others, and the fact that John Scalzi and Tor Books are AGAIN the incongruous beneficiary of this sort of quietly preferential treatment is further evidence of the influential cliques and whispering campaigns that George Martin and other SJWs have disingenuously denied.

That being said, I have duly removed “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” from the collection we are preparing for the Hugo Packet. And I trust that the various complaints about John C. Wright receiving six nominations can now stop, given that he now has no more nominations than Seanan McGuire received last year.

Meanwhile, another rabbit is up to the usual game. One Martha L. Thomases of New York, NY,  who “never knowingly slept with a Republican”, has posted a fake review of RIDING THE RED HORSE:

What a piece of tripe. Exactly the kind of …
By Martha L. Thomases “Martha Thomases”on April 13, 2015

What a piece of tripe. Exactly the kind of fiction that appeals to men who are insecure in their masculinity. My only regret is that one can’t rate this book any less than one star.

I’ve reported it for abuse and inappropriate content as a fake review from someone who is not a verified purchase and has not read the book, and I encourage you to do the same. Please be aware, prospective fake reviewers, if you lie about us, we will not hesitate to tell the truth about you.

I am also encouraging Amazon to consider cancelling the accounts of reviewers who post fake reviews. Retroactively. It’s an area they are looking into because their review system is very important to them, so keep that in mind when you are tempted to post a fake review. Note that Ms Thomases appears to be responding to this call by Glenn Hauman to post fake reviews of Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies works and thereby lower their average ratings.

Oh, and to answer the title question: what do you do to rabid puppies? You put them down.

I would point out that recommending a specific number of nominations for
the Hugo ballot is within the rules. Posting fake reviews of books you
have neither purchased nor read is absolutely not. I have repeatedly told people never to post any fake review for any reason. But if the SJWs truly want to play this game, we can certainly arrange to bring a hydrogen bomb to the knife fight.

As for retaliation against PZ’s book, my position is the same as it was
when McRapey’s rabbits were posting fake reviews on Amazon. First, PZ
didn’t take any such action himself or advocate it. Second, he is not
responsible for the actions of his readers. Third, one’s integrity
should not permit one to write a false review of a book, no matter how
much one despises the author. Fourth, I am actively opposed to all fake
reviews, be they pro or con.  I do not want anyone who considers
himself a reader, a fan, a regular, or Dread Ilk to write fake reviews
of anything. Why? Because lying about what you have not read is wrong.  

UPDATE: Glen Hauman is dumber than I thought. He’s actually an author himself, complete with an Amazon page. Now, I do NOT recommend downgrading his books, but I absolute recommend bringing his call to violate the Amazon reviews system to Amazon’s attention. And I call upon Hauman to recant and remove his idiotic call to put down the works written by the various Sad Puppies nominees.

UPDATE 2: Hauman must be a Making Light acolyte, given his penchant for disemvoweling. Here is what the disemvoweled comment on his site says:

*shakes head slowly* You guys really are a special brand of stupid, aren’t you? Do you enjoy poking bears with sticks as well? His audience dwarfs yours and he’s not above using the same tactics as you (as you so helpfully pointed out). So you go ahead and suggest An Approach that can only possibly win if your audience is larger than his. What exactly do you hope to accomplish? BTW, talking about the Hugo Awards without actually talking about the Hugo Awards is dishonest. Why not use an honest title, like “Vox is a horrible person. Here’s how to beat him at his own game.” I only suggest that title because you’ve shown you don’t care about committing libel.