Six of Five

Seven different people have independently come up with the notion that this should be my Borg name, so I suppose in the event that I am ever assimilated by the science fiction hive mind, I shall most certainly adopt it. Nerd minds really do think alike. What I think is funniest about the Hugo results is the speed with which the Wikipolice were quick to add them to the Wikipedia page about me; apparently I am so important that I am the only not-winner to have his not-winning deemed notable. Not even the massive International Lord of Hate is a figure of such significance.  I thought the quad-sourcing was particularly amusing. (Blame Jamsco for the image. Why do I have the feeling it is going to end up on the Encyclopedia Dramatica?)

In 2014 Beale’s novelette, “Opera Vita Aeterna”, was nominated for the Hugo Award.[17] It came in sixth out of five nominees, behind “No Award.”[18][19][20][21]

Four sources makes it that much more true! The pinkshirts just never learn, do they? The more they go out of their way to exhibit the extent of their irrational hatred for me, the more they seek to DISQUALIFY me, the more interesting I become to everyone else who isn’t part of their twisted little world. I suspect some of them, like John Scalzi, are aware of this but lack the necessary emotional control to restrain themselves. The call of the hate is simply too strong to resist.

Speaking of McRapey, it was suggested that it was not entirely fair for me to call out him out for his traffic fraud when I haven’t publicly provided any evidence of the Google pageviews at VP. (There was no similar complaint about AG, as the running “monthly” total is displayed on the left sidebar there. If anyone knows how to get that widget running on the old Blogger template, please let me know.) After all, the Sitemeter pageviews are considerably lower than the Google pageviews claimed, so it was theoretically possible that my traffic might be lower than I was asserting. Fair enough, if perhaps a little insulting to even an intelligence much more modest than mine. So, I grabbed this screenshot yesterday towards the end of the day; yesterday’s total was actually 36,241.

This covers the last month, so it is no one-day spike. As you can see, the daily pageviews have averaged about 34k; at no point in the last month have the daily pageviews descended below 26,328. And one has only to visit Alpha Game to see that the running 30-day total is 1,475,512 at the moment, or rather, a bit more, since the number rises throughout the day. August should end up somewhere around 1,535,000, plus or minus 25k. Anyhow, there it is, so I hope everyone is satisfied that everything is scrupulously fair.

I shall now await all the fawning puff pieces about me in various media sources and the inevitable book contracts offered by eager mainstream genre publishers now that it is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that I have nearly four times more traffic (3.75x more, to be precise) than the “extraordinary amount of traffic” that impressed so many people in the recent past.


8 million views

8 million views for 2014. Just passed the number. Thanks to ESR for the assist. I’ll note again that this is just the views recorded by Google’s software; the actual number of views is higher. I’ll have a full report at the end of the year. But still: 8 million views. It doesn’t suck. Thank you.

I’m afraid I’m not being completely honest here. The actual number of Google pageviews recorded was 8,352,092, so 8 million was passed about a week ago. I just thought it was funny to imitate McRapey’s self-congratulatory auto-backpatting for his all-time best year… at the end of July.

And speaking of things I found amusing, this extended apology from Giuseppe, who felt he misjudged me, would have forced me to accept it on that grounds alone, if I had been inclined to take any offense in the first place, which I’m not.

Hi Vox.

Fuck! I read a lot more of your blog. And actually writing this e-mail is literally kinda painful. Honesty and honour demand it, but fuck, I don’t need to enjoy the process right?!

It has become quite clear, at least with respect to your elucidation of rhetoric vs dialectic that your understanding of the subject far surpasses mine. One could put this down to the simple fact that a number of things would seem to indicate you simply have spent more time studying the subject, and while this is undoubtedly true, as is the fact that your training as an economist no doubt also allows you to sift through volumes of data that personally I would find too boring to bother with (not saying they are devoid of instruction, just that they would not grab my attention to the required extent necessary for me to indulge enough in it that I would benefit from it anywhere near as much as you seem to have) and no doubt, other endeavours I may be better at, but the fact is that it has become clear that you excel at it compared to me because of another factor.

I don’t think you are materially smarter than I am. That is, you are very smart and in your chosen fields you will be more capable than me as a result, but  I would guess in my own chosen fields I would be more capable than you. It’s sort of academic anyway, and I don’t care, but precisely because it is extremely rare for me to come across someone smarter than me (and in a demonstrable fashion) I did notice it. Painfully sharply I have to say….

Your post on Modern vs Postmodern discourse on the Alpha Game blog was enlightening because it made me aware of how much I despise the postmodern methods (long before I came across you I came up with my own virulent hatred of all postmodern bullshit). It was so strong I literally had to take three goes at reading the postmodernist list, because it literally made my head spin with discomfort as if I had got a decent punch to the jaw. Now that this has become conscious knowledge, of course, I realise that psychologically I now have basically no option but to temper myself by full immersion/exposure to all that postmodernist babble, if for no other reason than banishing its existence wherever I find it trying to enter my life.

 [Long personal section redacted]

On some levels I still harbour a suspicion (increasingly I think I know it’s unfounded) that maybe, deep down, you’re still maybe just a very smart and well-read racist, fundamentalist Christian asshole… but… deep down I am realising this is not really the case. In fact, I recognise a certain level of natural ostracism by the crowds precisely because they are not smart enough to cope/see what you are really saying. Possibly, if I may even go so far, there may even be a certain level of humility in you. If I can see it, it is only because certain aspects of your style are not foreign to me. If the monkeys are gonna label you arrogant anyway, so be it, it’s a quick filter for stupidity.

And you may be guilty too (I know I have been) of probably taking a somewhat excessive pleasure in teasing their monkey-like brains (you bad Christian you!)

Nevertheless, all that said. I really just need to read more of your blog and learn more…. I know we are strangers, and that it probably means little or nothing to you, but I had clearly misjudged you. Honesty demands I apologise, at least to the extent that I was wrong, which I was. There are few people I can have honestly engaging discourse with. I have no doubt however, that you are one of them. Even if we were to disagree totally on some things, I am certain I would be able to respect your position for its integrity at least.

So yeah. Bastard of an e-mail to write, only one of its kind really, but it had to be done.

It is unusual for a writer to find a reader who genuinely understands him, even in part. What does Giuseppe mean by a certain level of humility in one of the most nakedly arrogant bloggers on the Internet? Well, he may not have been clear on the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, but unlike normal binary thinkers, he understands the difference between “I know I’m right” and “I know you’re wrong”. One can be humble with regards to the truth and yet utterly arrogant and dismissive of various peoples’ incorrect assertions regarding it.

He also grasps that the reason I don’t get upset about what he describes as “natural ostracism” is because I expect it. It’s exactly what has happened my entire life whenever I didn’t go to the trouble of veiling my intelligence and refraining from openly departing too far from the acceptably defined borders of consensus reality. Those who called me racist because I observed human differences when they insisted that “we are all the same inside” didn’t apologize to me when it was discovered that Caucasians and Asians are genetically different from each other, and from Africans, anymore than anyone apologized to me after repeatedly mocking me by demanding to know where the second Great Depression was when the economic recovery was declared for the first, second, and third years in a row.

It’s the behavior that is expected out of midwits. Stray too far from the intellectual fold and they are threatened by it. I’m not the first to be hated for it and I won’t be the last. But it is encouraging to learn that so many people are sufficiently open-minded to consider what I’m saying and actually think about it, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand because it is alien and scary to them.


Mailvox: contra suffrage

Chris Gerrib asks

VD, why shouldn’t every free adult human be able to vote in the country they are a citizen of?

For the same reason unfree children who are not citizens are not permitted to vote: it is expected that their votes will not be in the long-term interests of the country or its citizenry.

Another commenter, Shelles, appears to be of the David Futrelle school of debate, in which her inability to imagine an effective argument is confused with the nonexistence of such arguments. Which I found a little amusing here, since she somehow manages to touch on two effective arguments while missing the aspects that make them effective.

The only way to win the argument that women should not have the vote is to be able to successfully equate them with others that do not have the vote: minors, felons. The condition of being a woman is in no way like either of these.

The other possibility is to argue that the country will be better off if women don’t vote because women have a tendency to for for X, Y and Z, all of which will harm, if not destroy the country. The obvious problem with this argument is that it depends on one’s personal on view of exactly how the country ought to operate. This is countered by offering another personal view of how the country ought to be that is best advanced by women having the vote.

Done.

In essence the argument is: Women should not have the vote because it’s in the interests of a certain group.

It is certainly not the only way, but it is true that one will win the argument that women should not have the vote when one is able to
successfully equate them with others that do not have the vote: minors,
felons, and so forth. However, the fact that “the condition of being a woman is in no way like either of
these” is irrelevant and does not suffice as a counterpoint. The way women are successfully equated with others who do not have the vote is to demonstrate that their votes are equally incompatible with the long-term national interest as the other classes of current non-voters.

This can be done using a variety of metrics, including what Shelles describes as another possibility to the only way. Just to give one example, if the reason children are not permitted to vote is due to their limited time preferences, a comparison could be made between children’s time preferences, women’s time preferences, and men’s time preferences. If women’s time preferences were determined to be more akin to those of children than those of men, that would be a clear justification for denying the vote to them.

But to return to the option to the only way, Shelles says “the obvious problem with this argument is that it depends on one’s personal on view of exactly how the country ought to operate”. But since the argument rests on the country’s freedom, well-being, and future existence, her counter relies upon arguing that the country should be unfree, worse-off, and nonexistent. This is not a successful or convincing counter, even if it truly represents the personal view of the interlocutor rather than a hypothetical position of Shelle’s imagination.

One should always be careful when attempting to summarize an opponent’s position. Words like “in essence” or “basically” tend to be red flags alerting a critic to holes in one’s arguments.  They aren’t necessarily so, but in this case, they are. Because the statement is true: Women should not have the vote because it’s in the interests of a certain group, so long as that “certain group” is defined as “all the citizens of the country, including the women”.

There are very solid rational, Constitutional, and historical reasons for denying female suffrage. John Adams summarized them best in his famous written exchange with his wife:

“I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

“Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.
 

“Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
– Abigail Adams, 31 March 1776

“Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.

“We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight.”
– John Adams, 14 April 1776

Events have proven John Adams correct. Free men are accustomed to voluntarily limiting the use of their power and not pushing it to the full extent of its capabilities. Women, to say the least, are not. Just as an angry woman does not pull her punches, women in politics do not restrain their instincts to attempt to control the uncontrollable. Abigail Adams is projecting: she wrongly assumes all men would be tyrants if they could because she knows that is true of herself and other women. And women do not hold themselves bound by laws in any case, regardless of whether they have had voice or representation or not. They are bound by fear.

This is why a nation that wishes to remain wealthy and free does not permit female involvement in its governance, and why totalitarians from the Italian Fascists to the Soviet Bolsheviks have historically made a priority of female involvement in the political process.


Speaking of preferential treatment

A longtime member of the Dread Ilk has a job opportunity in Ohio:

I have a Dread Ilk job opportunity. My local sales firm in the Ohio region is hiring two sales people, one experienced and one entry-level. They plan to make decisions in the next month. If anyone is interested, could they communicate through you? This is a golden opportunity for an entry-level sales person to break into the oil and gas industry.

The successful person will be working for my rep firm, and indirectly working for me so I would only pass on quality people, obviously. Would love to see one of the Ilk get hired so whatever you can do I would appreciate it.

If you’re interested shoot me an email with Ilk Job in the subject and I’ll pass it on.


Mailvox: a request

An academic researcher from Stony Brook has a favor to ask of you all, namely, taking a survey:

I came across Vox Popoli recently, and really enjoyed some of the recent posts.  In particular, today’s post about the NYPD is spot on (as someone who has spent plenty of time in the city).  You hear stories like this far more often than you should, not only in NYC, and as you say rarely is anyone ever called to task for it.  I also found your reactions to Elizabeth Warren’s list of progressive tenets to be very insightful.

In any case, my colleagues and I are conducting a national survey and I was hoping that you would be interested in helping us.  After spending some time on your site, I think that your readership would be perfect for inclusion in the study.  The survey we are conducting is interested in how people’s personal characteristics and beliefs shape their understanding of other people and American society. Conservatives tend to be underrepresented in surveys, their opinions aren’t heard as a result and we don’t get an accurate picture of what Americans think about their society.  Right now, we desperately need conservative responses to the survey, as liberal responses currently outnumber conservatives about 2 to 1.

The authors at a few other blogs recently helped us out (BrothersJudd and PJ Media to name a few), and I was hoping you might do the same by posting the link to this survey on your site and encourage your readers to participate.  The survey takes roughly 15-20 minutes to complete. All survey responses will be completely confidential, and all identifying information will be stripped by the survey collection software.

One certainly can’t fault his manners; there are a lot of people who could learn from his example. I checked out the survey and it’s harmless enough. I think it’s attempting to measure if your ideology helps or hinders your ability to read other people, but I could be wrong. I will say they would benefit from using higher resolution images; I recognized some of them from previous surveys. Anyhow, if you’re amenable, go play a little multiple choice.

Keep in mind that the scenario questions intentionally don’t have enough information to make a reasonable judgment; the purpose is to see what you deduce from the insufficient information provided.


Mailvox: Book II and other matters

CC is concerned I am pulling a GRR Martin with regards to the sequel to A THRONE OF BONES:

With all the projects you have going on, I’m worried that you won’t finish (or advance) the story you started in Throne of Bones. I’d like to find out what happens to Marcus, and learn more about the watchers. If you are in fact working on the next volume, when (approximately) do you expect to publish it? You can answer this on your Vox blog. I’m sure others want to know as well.

It’s certainly true that other projects, particularly the unexpected birth of Castalia House, have reduced the amount of time I have to work on the second book in THE ARTS OF DARK AND LIGHT. But it’s more than a fair trade, I think; multiple books from Tom, John, Rolf, and others in exchange for a delay in the return to Selenoth. For example, I recently finished editing a new novella by John, ONE BRIGHT STAR TO GUIDE THEM, that may be the best thing he’s ever written. It’s hard for me to place much import on my own work, or take it too seriously, when I’m so closely involved with the work of better writers. However, I am actively working on Book Two and it will be out in the first half of 2015.

Marcus and his legion are in Savondir, where they have been employed by the King to deal with the incursion of orcs on the eastern border. Marcus meets up again with the royal battlemage Theuderic de Merovech, although not necessarily in the manner one might assume. The elves find themselves facing the main body of the orcish forces, which causes the High King to turn in desperation to a certain magister who renounced magic long ago. The dwarves are facing their own problems, and in any event, they are little inclined to help either Man or Elf, and Skuli Skullbreaker embarks upon a saga worthy of the name in which he discovers the dark secret underlying the birth of the wolf-demons and their true objective.

It’s a bit more challenging in some ways than the first book, because in addition to keeping track of all the various storylines, I’m delving deeply into three cultures rather than one. And, of course, there are the other projects in the works, chief among them First Sword, about which EN inquired:

I recently read (and greatly enjoyed) A Throne of Bones, and through the wonders of internet ‘related to’ links, learned of First Sword. It sounded like something that I and a decent chunk of my friends would enjoy, so I searched for it in Google Play and the Apple App store, but so far have not been able to find it. Is First Sword live, and if not, is there a projected release date? Also, I greatly enjoy the blog – Intellectual integrity is such a rare commodity stateside these days. Compared to the usual tepid mental swamp of lukewarm ignorance dictating what ‘polite’ company is permitted to discuss, the actual heat and actual cold of both informed passion and ruthless logic is intensely refreshing. 

First Sword is not yet live, nor do we have a projected release date. We’re taking the id Software approach; it will be done when it is done. We are actively working on it and anticipate it will be out this year, although possibly only in beta. We will want several dozen volunteers to help playtest it, but don’t volunteer yet; I will post here a call for them when the time comes.

And since we’re talking about various projects here, I will go ahead and drop the first hint of a new one that will be formally announced in the next two months. I won’t say anything more about it, but will simply leave this out there for speculation. (If you’re involved, please keep your mouth shut and don’t provide any more hints.) I’m not the lead on it, but it’s something with which I’ve wanted to be involved for a while now and I think it is not only going to be entertaining in the short term, but of ongoing interest in certain circles for years to come.

Now to return to the subject of Castalia House: if you’re not making the Castalia blog a regular stop, then you are seriously missing out. Jeffro, Daniel, and Mascaro have been doing an excellent job turning it into one of the best places anyone interested in SF/F can go to read reviews of books published by independent and self-publishers and delve into retrospectives of obscure classics from the past. We’re looking for a few more contributors of a similar quality, particularly interviewers, so if you’re able to contribute on a weekly basis, let me know.


Mailvox: DISCO SUCKS and the Evil League of Evil

I was less interested in the analogy drawn here than the important conclusion drawn by the emailer:

I mentioned that we were now in the “riot grrl” phase of SFF. Today, after reading the following link, I came to more conclusions:  1) The Evil League of Evil is the “Disco Sucks” of SFF, and 2) NEVER let your opponent have the opportunity to speak on your own behalf and not answer in kind:

“So how did racism and homophobia get attached to Disco Demolition?

In 1996, VH1 was attempting to expand from the music video template of MTV by creating documentaries and original programming. One of their first was “The Seventies,” a look at the decade in popular culture. A producer asked me to contribute a commentary about Disco Demolition. I saw the event as a romp, not of major cultural significance. I had no interest in claiming responsibility for killing disco. My target was Disco DAI, which was smothered in spring of 1980. The interview coincided with my quitting WMVP (a story for another day). I missed it.

Blowing off that interview was a mistake. The producers reframed the event through the lens of 1996 sensibilities. For the first time, the event was labeled racist and homophobic. It was a cheap shot, made without exploration, and it served as a pivot point for their documentary. It has lived on, thanks to Google….We were a bunch of disenfranchised 20-something rockers having some laughs at the expense of older brothers who had the capital and the clothing to hang with the trendy social elite. We were letting off a little steam. Any statement to the contrary is just plain wrong.”

I remember the VH1 documentary he’s writing about, and I remember the saddened, wistful, “knowing” looks of the disco artists bemoaning the “Disco Demolition” and the “Disco sucks” movement in general, and yes, I specifically remember the charges of racism and homosexual backlash they labeled it with, completely unchallenged.  I even remember a cutscene of Tom Petty smashing the shit out of a drum machine around 1979 or so.  Funny how no one ever accuses HIM of being racist or homophobic.

My parents both grew up in Philadelphia in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s.  That means American Band Stand when it was still broadcast in Philly, there were such things as “regional sounds” regional hits and scenes, records you might NEVER hear again if you ventured 2 or 3 hours away.  In the ’70s, they were into disco (they married in ’75, I came along in ’77).  Everybody was into disco, for the simple reason, it was fun and it was a party scene, especially for guidos growing up in Northeastern cities.

My parent’s reaction to the “Disco Sucks” thing?  Well, they thought it was a little mean spirited, at worst, and maybe, maybe, there was an element of anti-black or anti-gay bias in it, but they were the first to admit that by 1979 it was pretty much over.  They didn’t attach too much cultural significance to disco itself, It was a fad, and like all fads, it was time to move on to the next one.  Incidentally 1979 is about the time they both jumped off the pop culture wagon – they didn’t care for punk or New Wave, and I think, other than oldies collections, the last NEW record my Dad bought was Michael Jackson’s “Off the Wall.”  As time went on, they went further back into soul, R&B, doo wop, and classic rock. 

They were more Philly Soul and Motown fans than anything else, so they also readily admitting to realizing just how limiting a musical form disco was.  Sure there are some tremendous records, but if you wanted something that was actually PLAYED by musicians, you were looking for Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, and Chic, NOT the very first names that come to mind when someone says “Disco.”  I mean, Kiss went disco, Blondie went disco, Star Wars went disco.  It was simply,  played,  out.  It did NOT speak to rock fans.  There was only so much you could do with “four on the floor” and “burn baby burn.”

Funny though, the VH1 “rockumentary” made ZERO mention about the 9 million pound asteroid in the room:  did disco, in fact, SUCK?  No one of course would actually go near the idea that maybe, just maybe the music wasn’t really all that good – now it’s looked at as kitsch, nostalgia fodder.

The interviewees they had, that I remember, included Donna Summer and Nile Rodgers of Chic – that’s bringing in the ringers – that is a convenient way of saying “you can’t say it sucked!!!”  They sure as hell didn’t interview the Bee Gees, or Abba, or Tavares.  No one actually did much criticizing of the obvious, the central point, the music, other than to say a little “yeah maybe it was a bit manufactured and faddish, I mean, c’mon, Kiss” but YOU’RE ALL REYCISSS!!!!!  It’s like how you simply CANNOT criticize Pink SFf for its actuall literary merits or lack thereof – the SKILL of the writer – all that’s important is the feels and  the politics, it doesn’t matter if it’s actually good or not.  It’s art as participation trophy for the oppressed, and this documentary, I think, KICKSTARTED that idea into the stratosphere.

But, here’s the point, the original instigator, Steve Dahl, passed on a chance to have his say in court.  Would it have made a difference? I don’t know.  And I also don’t know why he waited until now to make his point, but the fact is this, this rock-hard meme that’s it going to be damn near impossible to ever refute is stuck in the popular consciousness, just about the time when PC bullshit and the war on language really took off, the 1990s.

So, why say that ELoE is the “disco sucks” movement of SFF?  Because you’re the only ones calling out Pink SFF on its overuse of drum machines, recycled beats, empty lyrics, and celebration of shallow excess – Pink SFF happens to be the current ever-declining sales posting radio friendly unit shifters of the moment, but you’re basically saying that what came along with “New Wave” sci-fi in the ’60s and ’70s, which was pretty damn disco sci-fi if you ask me (Jerry Cornelius anyone?), also begat cynical punk rock (cyberpunk), industrial (gray goo), and other fads that have had their time, and are fading. You could call some of Pink SFF “hip hop” but unlike real-life hip hop, it also doesn’t sell, and I think that’s more apparent in comics and graphic novels and movies than books. 

He’s correct. The pinkshirts are DESPERATE to avoid the discussion that the Evil League of Evil has collectively initiated about science fiction and fantasy, and they are constantly trying to summarize and explain and interpret and spin what we are saying rather than simply quoting us. In many cases, they don’t even refer directly to us by name, but instead provide in-group indicators so that their fellow pinkshirts will know to whom they are referring and bark on request while moderates and neutrals more capable of being swayed will be left in the dark.

They are attempting to control the narrative rather than engage in discourse, for the obvious reason that they know as well as we do that we are absolutely correct. They claim we are bad writers while readily admitting to never having read our books. We claim they are inept storytellers pushing left-wing propaganda on the basis of being intimately familiar with the very best they have to offer. Hence we can identify them, quote them at length, and directly engage because we have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. They, on the contrary, are correctly fearful of being exposed, at having their whole Potemkin Village of publishers and editors and writers and reviews and “bestseller” lists and awards blown away in the harsh, judgmental winds of reality.

So, they will attempt to continue controlling the narrative by speaking on our behalf and erecting the sort of strawmen they are capable of defeating. But, thanks to the Internet and our own determination to speak for ourselves, they will not succeed.


Big in Lisbon

QUANTUM MORTIS Gravidade Mortal is free today:

#1  Kindle > Literature & Fiction > Foreign Language Fiction > Portuguese
#1  Foreign Languages > Portuguese > Crime, Thriller & Mystery
#1  Foreign Languages > Portuguese > Fantasy, Horror & Science Fiction


And so is Uma Magia Perdida.


#2 Kindle > Literature & Fiction > Foreign Language Fiction > Portuguese
#2 Foreign Languages > Portuguese > Fantasy, Horror & Science Fiction

In other news, BS wants to know precisely who I mean when I talk about Pink SF/F:

I started reading your blog after finding you on a link from Instapundit. I don’t particularly like SF but do like fantasy of the sort Patricia McKillip writes (as an example). I also love Tolkein (again as an example). I read your story you had for free (now vanished from my Kindle app) and enjoyed it very much. I bought your Irrational Atheist. I think I might like Sarah Hoyt. I see you have some recommendations on your website. I don’t want to wind up with books by authors you refer to as “pink SF/F. Is there a list of what authors to either avoid or to look for?

Marion “the child molester” Zimmer Bradley and Samuel “NAMBLA” Delaney clearly top the Pink list. They are among the worst of the freak show. Off the top of my head there is Jim Hines, Mary Kowal, Rachel Swirsky, Marko Kloos, John Scalzi, Sheri Tepper, and Mercedes Lackey. But you can find a longer list here comprised of self-identified equalitarians.

We probably should see about putting a comprehensive Pink SF/F list together as a service to those who wish to avoid it. So, if you have a candidate, provide their name and make the case for inclusion in the comments. But they should be clear-cut candidates, not merely authors who are influenced by the gatekeepers. For example, I would not consider Jim Butcher to be a Pink SF/F writer, he is merely a gamma male who can’t bear to imagine a man making a move on an attractive woman.


Mailvox: a case for the Singularity

James Miller, an econ professor at Smith and the author of Singularity Rising, asked if he could present his case for
the future likelihood of a Singularity. Or, as the Original Cyberpunk has described it, “the rapture of the nerds”. Since this is a place where we are always pleased to give both space and genuine consideration to diverse points of view, I readily agreed to his request.

I define a Singularity as a threshold of time at which AIs at least as
smart as humans and/or augmented human intelligence radically remake
civilization. 

1.  Rocks exist!
Strange as it seems, the existence of rocks actually
provides us with evidence that it should be possible to build computers
powerful enough to take us to a Singularity. 
There are around ten trillion, trillion atoms in a one-kilogram rock,
and as inventor and leading Singularity scholar Ray Kurzweil writes: “Despite the apparent solidity of the object, the atoms are
all in motion, sharing electrons back and forth, changing particle spins, and
generating rapidly moving electromagnetic fields.  All of this activity represents computation,
even if not very meaningfully organized.”

If the particles in the rock were organized in a more
“purposeful manner” it would be possible to create a computer trillions of
times more computationally powerful than all the human brains on earth
combined.   Our eventual capacity to
accomplish this is established by our second fact. 

2.  Biological cells exist!
The human body makes use of tiny biological machines to
create and repair cells.  Once mankind
masters this nanotechnology we will be able to cheaply create powerful
molecular computers.  Our third fact
proves that these computers could be turned into general purpose thinking
machines. 

3.  Human brains exist!
Suppose this book claimed that scientists would soon build a
human teleportation device.  Given that
many past predictions of scientific miracles—such as cheap fusion power, flying
cars or a cure for cancer—have come up short, you would rightly be suspicious
of my teleportation prediction.  But my
credibility would jump if I discovered a species of apes that had the inborn
ability to instantly transport themselves across great distances.

In some alternate universe that had different laws of
physics, it’s perfectly possible that intelligent machines couldn’t be created.  But human brains provide absolute proof that
our universe allows the construction of intelligent, self-aware machines.   And, because the brain exists already,
scientists can probe, dissect, scan and interrogate it.  We’re even beginning to understand the
brain’s DNA and protein-based ‘source code’. 
Also, many of the tools used to study the brain have been becoming
exponentially more powerful, which explains why engineers might be only a
couple of decades away from building a working digital model of the brain even
though today we seem far from understanding all of the brains operations.  Would-be creators of AI are already using
neuroscience research to help them create machine learning software.   Our fourth fact shows the fantastic
potential of AI. 

4.  Albert Einstein existed!

It’s extremely unlikely that the chaotic forces of evolution
just happened to stumble on the best possible recipe for intelligence when they
created our brains, especially since our brains have many constraints imposed
on them by biology: they must run on energy obtained from mere food; must fit
in a small space; and can’t use useful materials such as metals and plastics,
that engineers employ all the time.

But even if people such as Albert Einstein had close to the
highest possible level of intelligence allowed by the laws of physics, creating
a few million people or machines possessing this man’s brain power would still
change the world far more than the industrial revolution. We share about 98% of our genes with some primates, but that
2% difference was enough to produce creatures that can assemble spaceships,
sequence genes, and build hydrogen bombs.  
What happens when mankind takes its next step, and births lifeforms who
have a 2% genetic distance from us?  

5.  If we were smarter, we would be smarter!

Becoming smarter enhances our ability to do everything,
including our ability to figure out ways of becoming even smarter because our
intelligence is a reflective superpower able to turn on itself to decipher its
own workings.  Consider, for example, a
college student taking a focus-improving drug such as Adderall, Ritalin or
Provigil, to help learn genetics.  After
graduation, this student might get a job researching the genetic basis of human
intelligence, and her work might assist pharmaceutical companies in making
better cognitive enhancing drugs that will help future students acquire an even
deeper understanding of genetics. 
Smarter scientists could invent ways of making even smarter scientists
who could in turn… Now, throw the power of machine intelligence into this
positive feedback loop and we will end up at technological heights beyond our
imagination.  

I hereby recuse myself from the position of critic, mostly since my position on the concept can be best described as “mild, but curious skepticism”. But everyone should feel free to either express their doubts or offer additional arguments to bolster Prof. Miller’s case.


Mailvox: the irrelevance of raciss

The Left is finally, dimly, beginning to grasp that they have inoculated everyone from the charge of racism by virtue of accusing nearly everyone of it.

I just caught the end of a lefty, high-brow (in relative terms) BBC political show (The Marr Show).  At the end a black guy, a lefty trade union leader sitting next to Nigel Farage said that he was troubled…(my pause for effect)…that the word ‘racist’ had been so devalued as to mean very little any more. And that was a very bad thing.  (Nigel agreed)

Once you can debate without sexist, racist etc being used to shut down everything…where does it end? I mean, you might be able to have adult discussions about issues, which could mean real progress towards tackling the tractable issues.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all. The devaluation of “racist” was always inevitable, which is one reason that I never feared cretins trying to make it stick.  We see the same thing writ small and large. In the SF/F world, the pinkshirts foolishly thought that by pointing and shrieking and crying raciss would harm me. One Hugo nomination and 10 straight months with at least 100k more pageviews than the leading pinkshirt site has ever had later, it is obvious that their slanderous approach was a complete failure. In the world of UK politics, three straight weeks of every major media institution daily crying racist at UKIP resulted in the first national election in over a century in which neither the Tory nor the Labour party finished first. That is beyond complete failure, it was an epic failure the likes of which have seldom been previously seen.

In a civilized Western world enduring an active decades-long invasion by tens of millions of the half-civilized and uncivilized, it should not be at all surprising that accusations of racism, whether true or false, now tend to do the accused more good than harm. Especially in light of the fact that the core concept underlying anti-racism, the idea that all human beings are fundamentally the same under the skin, has now been completely disproven by genetic science.

Science is always on the side of the realists, no matter their ideology. If your beliefs are in line with both logic and science, truly in line with them, they will eventually triumph in the end, no matter how unpopular they might be today. Prior to the mass invasion of the vibrants, it was possible to claim that the barbarian non-Western populations could be transformed into civilized quasi-Westerners by pretending everyone was the same. A few decades, and more than a few riots, street beheadings, mass rapes, murders, and sex enslavements later, it is no longer possible to credibly claim that multiculturalism, diversity, or anti-racism are intellectually viable positions.

So the Left is beginning to mourn the effective loss of what has been its most important political weapon in the last 50 years. And despite their desperate efforts, I tend to doubt “homophobe” and “transphobe” are likely to serve as adequate substitutes. It would be nice if this meant we could have genuinely dialectical debate, but I tend to suspect it will do little more than change the form of their rhetoric rather than the substance.