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?


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.


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.


This blog goes to 23

 In which George Martin is slapped back into reality:

 nathancherolis
Apr. 12th, 2015 03:37 pm (UTC)
Re: Vox Day the anarchist
George… do you have any idea how many people read Vox’s blog and love it?

The traffic widget is right there for all to see George.

The man has what is arguably the most read blog in all of science fiction. It may be the most read science fiction website of any type.

People keep underestimating him. People keep thinking that he cannot possibly be this popular and have this many supporters.

Accept it. He is. He does.

grrm
Apr. 12th, 2015 08:06 pm (UTC)
Re: Vox Day the anarchist
Maybe so. If that’s true, it is terrifying.

Rabbits. They are so predictable. You’d think they would understand that is why it is called the Evil LEGION of Evil, not the Evil CENTURY of Evil or Evil COHORT of Evil. And he’s still insulting you, my readers and supporters, even after being warned.

grrm
Apr. 12th, 2015 08:44 pm (UTC)
Re: Who’s sufficient enough conservative to denounce Day?
Yes, generally speaking, “ignore the troll” is a good approach.

But with Vox, as with Hate, it does not seem to have worked. Ignored, they just grow, bigger and bigger, attracting more and more toads to their respective ponds.

 I’m sure everyone here will be shocked to learn that this fearsome chief rabbit is waddling away as fast as he can rather than engage in the honest dialogue for which he was calling.

 douglas_wardell
Apr. 13th, 2015 12:34 am (UTC)
On Day, Denouncements and Debates
While I’ve only been a lurker here, I’ve been reading your blog slightly longer than Vox’s and I will lose a great deal of respect for you if you decline the opportunity to debate him on the topic(s) of your choosing.

As for why I don’t denounce him, the things you’ve stated about him are falsehoods and misrepresentations of his positions. To be fair, he does sometimes bait the hook in such a way that the casual observer may misinterpret his positions to be much more inflammatory than they really are, but that’s a far cry from what he’s actually being accused of here and elsewhere.

Beyond that, any fair examination of speech from him and about him will make clear that the torrent of “hate-speech” is not flowing in the direction you assert.

If you disagree with me, you might as well debate your assertions with Vox point-by-point since he’s made the offer. Either you find out you were wrong and the accusations were unfair, or you prove your points and get at least some of the condemnation you’ve been calling for. Either should be a win for you.

grrm
Apr. 13th, 2015 04:34 am (UTC)
Re: On Day, Denouncements and Debates
What I have asserted is that “torrent of hate speech” is flowing in both directions. That’s why I explicitly linked Vox Day and Requires Hate in the same post.

You know, it is not as if Day’s statements were misreported, or distorted, or hard to find. They are all right up there on the internet. Anyone can find them in a few moments of Googling. They say what they say. Dancing around and saying, “yes, but they did not mean what they seem to mean” is ingenuous at best.

I can already tell you the result of a “debate” between me and Vox Day. Those who lean left will say I won, those who lean right will say he won, and positions will only harden.

The debate should be between VD and someone like Correia or Torgensen, between a Rabid Puppy and a Sad Puppy, to determine who really speaks for this “movement” and what its goals are.

George knows what they mean. The amusing thing is that someone did bring Jemisin’s statements to his attention, and he promptly began trying to argue context. Context! I’m sort of curious as to what context would make statements like “George Martin is racist as fuck” or “George RR Martin is a self-described pedophile, rapist, kitten-abuser, and a few other flavors of sex criminal” acceptable.

It says it on the Internet, it must be true! He also responded to the International Lord of Hate, mostly by discounting his personal experiences, although he does appear to be realistic about the consequences of open conflict in the SF world.

[[CORREIA: If the people attacking us don’t chill out, more of my people
are going to get pissed off, and it might hit a 12 or 13 next year.
:)]]

OH, believe me, I know. And we’ll go right up to 13 with
you. And Vox Day and his band of not-so-merry-men will go right to 23.
And then the Hugos will pretty much be dead, and the world of science
fiction will be that much the poorer.

That does sound like us, doesn’t it? Forget 11. THIS BLOG GOES TO 23!


Mailvox: an offer to debate George Martin

n4apound quotes George Martin and proposes what Mr. Martin has said he is seeking.

“[Vox Day is] spewing forth the venom of hatred and violence, poisoning any attempt at honest dialogue.”

Honest question: Can you point to a real example of this?  (Poisoning honest dialogue, as opposed to an internet pissing match.) Since you seem to be referencing direct knowledge, have you personally ever attempted an honest dialogue with Vox Day? As a reader of VD, I thoroughly doubt your claim.  I have read VD dismantle opponents’ arguments logically, sometimes using rhetorical flair as well, but I have never seen him use hatred and violence to poison an attempt at honest dialogue. In fact, he seems to *relish* honest dialogue.

“When we disagree, is it really necessary to spit and snap at each other, to throw around insults and obscenities, to make death threads, rape threats? Can’t we just debate the issues?”

Good questions.  I say that (since I am a fan of VD’s books) as a hate-enabling toad or something like that.

“Can’t we just debate the issues?”

Since you are calling for a “conservative in the house with the courage and integrity… honest and brave enough” to denounce VD, perhaps you would lead the way in displaying those attributes and make your specific case against him (or his part in the Hugo noms) in a new post and invite VD to respond.

As a voice of liberal moderation and reason, if you made a good-faith effort to reach out and VD responds with threats and hatred as you portray, then I guarantee that your effort to marginalize him will be greatly aided.  I imagine at that point you would even get conservatives to denounce him as you desire.  You would absolutely OWN the moral high ground.  Or if you were able to reason him away from his “extreme” positions, even slightly, you would win that way as well.

(Of course, it may be too late for an honest dialogue now that you have attacked not just him but his benighted fans.  He has a policy regarding that.)

The only way you lose in such an endeavor is if the hyperbole(?) in your post above is shown to be wrong.  And is that really a loss?

I am quite willing to debate Mr. Martin blog-to-blog on any subject he chooses. In fact, I will go so far as to guarantee that if I resort to threats and hatred in the course of that debate, I will ask both Brad Torgersen and Larry Correia to denounce me in the strongest possible terms.

We certainly can debate the issues. I have debated economics, evolution, the existence of gods, and even ancient philosophical skepticism without any need to resort to threats, hatred, or even rancor. But it is difficult to debate when SJWs constantly run away from debate whenever it is proposed to them.

I once offered a debate on racism to Jason Sanford. He ran away from it, declaring that some things could not be debated. I once responded to PZ Myers’s call to debate the existence of God. He ran away from it, claiming that I was a crackpot. I subsequently offered to debate him in his field of expertise, but he ran away from that too. A third party proposed a debate between me and John Scalzi. I accepted, whereas John Scalzi ran away from it.

You have asked if we cannot simply debate the issues. I say we can. I am entirely willing to debate the issues with you without spitting and snapping, without throwing around insults and obscenities, and without threatening to rape or kill you, if you are willing to do the same. My readership is considerably smaller than yours, but it is not insubstantial; my blogs now see 1.6 million pageviews per month. In the interest of amity within the science fiction community, I am even willing to overlook the fact that you have repeated various falsehoods about me, concocted some fascinating new ones, and insulted my loyal readers by calling them “toads”.

Nevertheless, I am willing to debate the issues, Mr. Martin. I am willing to engage in honest dialogue. Are you?


Mailvox: Objectivity

Northern Hamlet objects to my appeal to average Amazon ratings as evidence that the 2015 shortlist is objectively superior to recent previous Hugo shortlists:

By this criteria for distinctive works: Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises at 3.8 < Vox’s A Throne of Bones 4.2 Also, you’re also nearly tied there with Twilight at 4.1 for distinctive storyness.

Online ratings are no more an accurate measure of distinctive works than sales are. It’s an extension of the same argument… consider: we could predict 1 million Big Mac sales might result in a large number of people saying they sure do like Big Macs. There’s brand loyalty there among other things. While for Lima Beans, people might not report loving them as much. None of this has anything to do with healthiness in the same way that sales and ratings have nothing to do with distinctiveness.

Think of the NYC art world. When they award Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst with some award for their accomplishments in art, do you imagine that the average person would even understand anything about the pieces? You place an unneeded emphasis on reception (sales or ratings, take your pick here). Though art and literature’s quality can be determined there if we like, it’s hardly the only way (nor the common way these niche communities have developed in the past)

Now, you can go different ways with this… Shakespeare was great because of how many people have learned to appreciate him or Robbe-Grillet is great and we do need judges (gatekeepers if you will) to help refine our understanding of the art and literature experience.

Northern Hamlet’s response is neither unfair nor unexpected. It does, however, manage to completely miss the point. His error is obvious: he substitutes “distinctive works” for “objective superiority” without realizing that the former is a subset of the latter. He furthere demonstrates that he still doesn’t grasp the purpose for citing the metric when SirHamster points out his mistake:

SirHamster: He provided an objective measure for Hugo recognition, not for story distinctiveness. Whether or not Amazon average ratings provide a measure of story distinctiveness, they provide an objective measure of user-perceived quality, which may have some relation to distinctiveness.

Northern Hamlet: Yes, and superior in ratings alone, not in reception. Because, well, we need it to mean anything the SJWs didn’t mean.

No, we don’t need it to mean anything at all beyond the fact that it is an objective measure of quality. We have been repeatedly informed, by people who admit that they have not even read the works concerned, that those works are inferior to other, previous works that those same people may or may not have read.

Now, we could appeal to the same subjective standard to what they are appealing, which is to say our own opinions. We can even argue that our opinions are more informed and reliable than theirs; there are more people on this blog who have read John Scalzi’s and Charles Stross’s and George Martin’s work than there are people at Whatever and Not A Blog who have read the work of John C. Wright, Tom Kratman, and Vox Day. It should be obvious that those of us who have read multiple works by each of all six authors can much more fairly compare them than those who have not.

But we don’t need to rely upon subjective metrics. We can cite objective metrics, and, lo and behold, whether we turn to Amazon or the more left-leaning Goodreads, we observe the same thing at work: the 2015 shortlist is more highly regarded than the previous shortlists. Marc DuQuesne did the math. Can you tell which list is objectively and quantitatively superior?

A: 4.60 Amazon, 4.16 Goodreads
B: 4.64 Amazon, 4.16 Goodreads
C: 4.46 Amazon, 4.11 Goodreads
D: 3.90 Amazon, 3.91 Goodreads

Let’s look at my list of Top 10 SF and Fantasy books of all time. For science fiction, my top ten averages 4.32 on Amazon. For Fantasy, it averages 4.53, giving a net average of 4.43. This is considerably higher than the pre-Puppy 1986-2013 Hugo shortlist average of 4.00. Of course, my Top 10 list is wholly subjective, but review the list before you dismiss it; my more esoteric selections such as China Mieville’s Embassytown and Tanith Lee’s The Book of the Damned tend to bring the average down. So, I would certainly invite similar comparisons to other all-time top 10 lists.

This metric even picks up the perceived decline in the quality of Hugo nominees about which so many people have complained over the years:

1986 to 1995: 4.13
1996 to 2005: 3.93
2006 to 2013: 3.94

Now, unless Northern Hamlet wishes to entirely discount a metric which clearly shows the objective superiority of The Lord of the Rings (4.7) to The Sword of Shannara (3.7), Starship Troopers (4.4) to Redshirts (3.8), The Golden Age (4.1) to Rainbow’s End (3.6), and For Whom the Bell Tolls (4.5) to A Throne of Bones (4.2) in favor of opinions that are rooted in nothing objective and are entirely subjective, I suggest that despite the occasional flaws, average review ratings are a perfectly reasonable measure that any sensible SF/F reader can use as a basic quality heuristic given a sufficient number of reviews.


George Martin knows we’re right

He appears to be underwhelmed by the panicked SJW proposals to change the rules and destroy the Hugos because the wrong people are on the 2015 shortlists:

Over at Making Light, and on several other sites, various rules changes are being proposed to prevent this from happening ever again. There are so many different proposals they make my head spin. More nominating slots, less nominating slots, weighted voting, eliminating the supporting memberships, outlawing slates, limiting nominees to a single nomination, juried nominations… on and on and on. The worldcon business meeting is never exactly a funfest, but if the proponents of half these proposals show up at Sasquan, this year’s will be a nightmare. And will probably still be going on when MidAmericon II convenes.

I am against all these proposals. If indeed I am at Spokane, and if I can get myself up in time for the business meeting, I will vote against every one of them.

Most of them, frankly, suck. And the mere fact that so many people are discussing them makes me think that the Puppies won. They started this whole thing by saying the Hugo Awards were rigged to exclude them. That is completely untrue, as I believe I demonstrated conclusively in my last post. So what is happening now? The people on MY SIDE, the trufans and SMOFs and good guys, are having an endless circle jerk trying to come up with a foolproof way to RIG THE HUGOS AND EXCLUDE THEM. God DAMN, people. You are proving them right….

Which brings me to another proposed countermeasure: the No Award strategy.

This comes in two flavors. The hardliners propose we vote NO AWARD for everything. Every category, even the ones where the Puppies have no nominees. No Hugo Awards at Sasquan, whatsoever. We’ll show them. Rather than letting them move into our house, we will burn it to the ground. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” It worked so well in Vietnam.

All I’ve got to say about this idea is, are you fucking crazy?

The other approach is less radical. Vote NO AWARD in all the categories that are All Puppy. In the others, chose between the nominees (there are a few) that did not appear on either the Sad Puppy or Rabid Puppy slate, and place all the rest, the SP/RP candidates, under No Award.

That’s less insane than the “No Award For Everything” idea, but only a little bit. Sorry, I will not sign on for this one either. For a whole bunch of reasons. For starts, the Puppies are already proclaiming that “No Award” equals victory for them (though sometimes it seems as though they believe anything that happens constitutes victory for them).

It’s called Xanatos Gambit, George. Look it up. Anything that happens IS a victory for us. That’s why “the trufans and SMOFs and good guys” are so upset. Deny us Hugos? Whoop-de-damn-do. We were never going to even be nominated anyhow. Change the rules? Make our point AND, as a bonus, make future Awards less legitimate. No Award everything? See: 2016 Hugos. No Award us? See: 2016 Hugos and you. Leave well enough alone and simply vote on the merits? Some of ours win a few richly deserved Hugos.

Of course, what George and HIS SIDE don’t seem to grasp, that Brad Torgersen tried to explain to them yesterday, is that not only are priorities of the Rabid Puppies not those of the “trufans and SMOFs and good guys”, they are not those of the Sad Puppies either. Brad and Larry and Sad Puppies aren’t the bad guys.

We are. We are the reavers and the renegades and the revolutionaries, and we don’t give a quantum of a damn about pieces of plastic or the insider approval they represent.

You would think it would stop being funny at some point. And you would be wrong.

Mad Mike Williamson, whose work is a 2015 Hugo nominee in the Best Related category, explains why the Old Way is no longer respected:

I attended SFWA functions at Torcon, where I tended bar, Loscon, and then Philcon.  The staff of SFWA knew who I was.  They greeted me on sight by first name. When I pulled out cover sheets of my next book (“The Hero”), one of the officers said, “Oh, a collaboration. Who’s John Ringo?”

At that point, John had about ten more books than I did, including three NYT bestsellers with David Weber.

But the in-crowd hadn’t heard of him.

And thus it often still is.  The in-crowd goes to the meetings, to the literary conventions, the writer that goes with them gets known, and then gets mentioned by friends, blogged about, and eventually, gifted with suggestions of awards.

Think about winners the last few years.  Are they good?  Generally. Popular? Within a small subsect always.  Not always among SF fans overall.  Can you think of any winners, where you’d think, “This other book that came out that year was better. Why didn’t it win?”

George RR Martin laments the “marketing” that has come to the Hugos, that the Old Way is no longer respected.

That’s because an NYT bestseller with 13 books out was unknown to the people who promote the award.

And the International Lord of Hate himself explains why it’s important to hate the player, not the team.

For those just joining us, if you are wondering where this is coming from, there are a couple of reasons many Sad Puppies supporters are leery of Tor.

There are a few Tor editors who have accused my people of some vile and outlandish things recently, but the Nielsen Haydens are only a couple of the editors there.  Sure, they’ve been insulting, but I’m not going to tar the other editors by association, especially since most of them haven’t said anything, and some have been very nice to us.

Tor.com has posted some asinine stuff on this subject, talked a lot of trash about us, and run some absurd, preachy, social engineering, wannabe literati wankery articles. However, Tor.com isn’t Tor the publisher. From what I’ve been told by some Tor employees, they are kind of their own thing.

Translation: all Torlings are SJWs who work for Tor or are otherwise associated with Tor. But not all people who work for Tor or are otherwise associated with them are Torlings. And some of the worst SJWs in science fiction have no association with Tor at all, but are merely trying to curry favor with the Nielsen Hayden clique in order to obtain an association with Tor.

So leave Tor qua Tor out of it. Tor.com is fair game; Patrick Nielsen Hayden runs it. The Toad of (formerly) Tor is fair game. Moshe whatever-his-name-is is fair game, he’s publicly taken shots at us. But as for the rest, give them the chance to be neutral or even to quietly take our side. We hardly lack for enemies as it stands.


Perspective

One thing I thought particularly worthy of note is what a small proportion of #GamerGate tweets are in response to the Hugo Awards. And notice that they didn’t move up until several days after the initial #SadPuppies spike.

That’s what I find so amusing about the SJW panic about those they call “thugs” in their midst. Not even a tenth of #GamerGate is paying any attention at all to the Hugo Awards yet, and that’s already enough to send them shrieking and running. This is still a period of calm as far as GG is concerned.

But if the SJWs want to be sure to grab #GamerGate’s attention, I suppose a coordinated media blitz full of ludicrous lies about people are an effective way to do it. It certainly isn’t anything we haven’t seen before.

I do have to give one SJW some credit, however. In addition to urging sanity on the more violence-prone SJWs, Mary Robinette Kowal also has a sense of humor. In response to Patrick Nielsen Hayden learns about the 2015 Hugo Awards, she wrote:

I never thought I’d say this, but you’ve made me laugh at something you intended to be funny. So, thanks for the chuckle. This was hilariously over the top.

The American Spectator covered the developing story:

The controversy over the Hugo Awards contains elements of a good
dystopian science fiction story. Unfortunately, the media brat-fit over
the successful effort to rescue escapist fantasy literature from its
political pursuers comes not from the pages of Brave New World but from Slate, Salon, and Entertainment Weekly.

Like
sports, video games, and cake baking, science fiction strangely finds
itself in the crosshairs of ideological killjoys. Perhaps it was only a
matter of time and space before the genre obsessed with time and space
became a culture-war battlefield.

“To many of the people involved in this industry, politics and message trump entertainment or quality,” Larry Correia, a New York Times-bestselling bard of monster stories, tells The American Spectator.
“But most people buy entertainment because they want to be entertained.
Many longtime readers fell away because they were tired of being
preached at or having their values insulted.”

It’s pretty good. It even contains a quote from yours truly. “We believe that the Best Novel award should actually go to the best
novels,” Vox Day says of his modest aim. “The best works should be
awarded, not only works by the best-connected.”

Who but a lunatic could possibly object to that? And, as I’ve noted, we can make a powerful objective case that the works awarded this year will be better, by every objective standard, than in recent years.