Tag: SJW

King Log or King Stork?

The only question is who will be king? Chris Hensley usefully summarizes the core issue underlying the conflict in science fiction at File 770:

It is helpful to understand the context in which the Puppies were started. There has been a debate going on for a number of years at this point, predating the Puppies and one which they are involved in like or not, about what, and who, we actually should accept and tolerate within the community. There has been a growing sentiment that maybe not everybody should be welcomed with open arms, maybe some people should be excluded.

I could spin it to sound more palatable, but it is a grave and terrible thing and as someone who supports sometimes excluding people for their actions it would be dishonest for me to do so. Fandom has had a tradition of not excluding anybody for any reason, including some pretty horrendous behavior up to and including sexual harassment and assault. This has finally come back to bite the community in the posterior, as well it should. A lot of this push back has been from the left-leaning end of fandom, and good for them, which has flavored both the community’s response and the reaction to that response. A lot of this is working how the details of what is, and is not, acceptable in what spaces.

One of the most heated debates, and the one the Puppies tapped into, is when speech should be excluded and when people can be excluded for their speech. The community traditionally leaned towards “never”, but the consensus has moved on that.

The moment that the SJWs in the science fiction community decided they could exclude individuals from it (and whether the SFWA expulsion was technically real or not is irrelevant in this regard), that meant the open community concept was dead. The principle was established. Now we can exclude Eskimos, people with big noses, people with little noses, people who look funny, or people who smell bad; in short, we can openly exclude anyone we have the power and the desire to exclude.

There is no longer free speech in science fiction. There is no longer freedom of expression or thought. It is now a simple ideological power game and we are ready to play that game with extreme prejudice. There is no need for discourse. There is no need for dialogue, for compromise, or negotiations. There is nothing to discuss.

They laid out the new rules. They laid out the new consensus. We not only accept them, we’re going to use make far more ruthless use of them than they ever imagined. Once we were content to let the twisted little moral freaks do and think and say what they wanted, but now they have claimed the right to tell US what to do and think and say we’re not going to tolerate them anymore. We are the sons of the Crusades and the daughters of the Inquisitions. This is a game we know how to win.

Remember, they didn’t exclude rapists. They didn’t exclude child molesters. They didn’t exclude Communists. They didn’t exclude monsters. They only excluded those with whom they ideologically disagreed. CMM observed:

I was reading the discussion from a 1960s fanzine which contained the discussion of whether Worldcon should ban the man who later became her husband (and still later died in prison after being convicted of child molestation).

In their attempts to keep up their ideal that everyone is welcome in fandom, the fans doing the discussing go to amazing lengths to deny that the guy is a problem and as they do so they reveal behavior they and people known to them have personally witnessed that made my hair stand on end, including groping the children of mutual friends in front of the friends and other guests at their house.

Remember, the science fiction community was absolutely fine with open child molesting. They still defend and honor child molesters and the sexually aberrant, even as they mock and exclude their ideological opponents. That is the sickness of the community over which the Evil Legion of Evil will methodically march. And speaking of the long march, now that the Hugo Packets are out, I should have my Totally Personal List Of Merest Voting Inclinations That Absolutely No One, Not Even The Vilest of Minions, Has To Follow To The Letter ready in about two weeks. I trust that description should suffice to keep everyone who has been whining about slates and bloc votes satisfied.

Mike Glyer adds:

It’s possible for people to exclude themselves from community with others they disapprove, but there seems to be no literal way of excluding anyone from fandom, which is why it has that misunderstood reputation for unlimited tolerance. I remember the time I passed Walter Breen in the aisle of a con huckster room, at first being astonished, then wondering “Should I tell someone?” Then, “Tell them what? They already know, he’s wearing membership badge.”

He’s absolutely right. It’s possible for a large group of people to exclude themselves from community with others they disapprove. All that we’re initially sorting out right now is who is on the Blue SF side and who is on the Pink SF side. Which, of course, is why many of those on the latter side are suddenly rushing to deny that there are two sides; they know theirs is much smaller. And they know we aim to misbehave.

UPDATE: This sums up our position nicely.

I did ask some pro-puppies that very question about how much they want. The answers I’ve gotten in emails have been very much along the lines of “Delenda Est”.

The Legion marches.

SJWs eat their own

There is a wonderful scene in Garrison Keillor’s Wobegon Boy when the protagonist, a true red SJW who runs a public radio station at a private university, returns from a conference where he received an award for excellence in public broadcasting to learn that the women who report to him have turned on him and are accusing him of sexism in order to oust him from his position as the station manager. Led by his secretary, a card-carrying member of Wounded Daughters of Distant Fathers, they plant a story in the local media prior to taking their manufactured complaints about him to the university administration.

The reporter was Sandra Welles, who had called me the day after my dinner with Jean. The story was a real torpedo… It said that I had “a problem” with assertive women, being from the Midwest, and that I tried to “psychologically seduce” women in meetings and charm my way around them. I had paternalized the decision structure and made women afraid to speak up….

My heart sank. These slanders had come from people who knew me. They worked at WSJO and had come to my house and drunk my wine and eaten my Chinese spareribs…. Why would people be so angry and bitter toward me? I had built this station from the ground up and had managed it reasonably well, and what was their beef?

Their beef, of course, was that said protagonist, John Tollefson, was a white man from the Midwest who played white male classical music at the station he built and managed. Ergo, he had to go in order to make way for the station’s transformation into a vehicle for social justice and women’s issues. After his ouster has been successfully orchestrated and is all but complete, Tollefson reflects on what will happen to the station, but like a good SJW, he completely fails to learn anything from his experience.

I sat in bed, drinking water and gazing out at the snowy backyard and thinking about the radio station and Dean Baird. In a few months, WJSO would change over, from classical music to talk: the Gay-Lesbian Parenting Hour at one P.M. and the Men Dealing with Impotence Hour at one-fifteen, the Hearing Impaired Hour at one-thirty, Wounded Nephews of Distant Uncles at one forty-five, People in Grief for Former Lovers at two, the Herpes Hour at two-fifteen, People in Search of Closure at two-thirty – each with its own smug host and tiny clientele, its own style of vacuity – and should I fight this? No, I did not think so.

This seemed apt in light of the recent SJW declaration of disavowal of George R.R. Martin, who has gone from repeatedly attacking the wintery, chaotic evil of the Rabid Puppies and Vox Day to refusing to talk about the feminist attacks on him and his television show.

I am getting a flood of emails and off-topic comments on this blog about
tonight’s episode of GAME OF THRONES. It’s not unanticipated. The
comments… regardless of tone… have been deleted. I have been
saying since season one that this is not the place to debate or discuss
the TV series. Please respect that….

There has seldom been any TV series as faithful to its source material, by and large (if you doubt that, talk to the Harry Dresden fans, or readers of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, or the fans of the original WALKING DEAD comic books)… but the longer the show goes on, the bigger the butterflies become. And now we have reached the point where the beat of butterfly wings is stirring up storms, like the one presently engulfing my email.

Prose and television have different strengths, different weaknesses, different requirements.

David and Dan and Bryan and HBO are trying to make the best television series that they can.

And over here I am trying to write the best novels that I can.

And yes, more and more, they differ. Two roads diverging in the dark of the woods, I suppose… but all of us are still intending that at the end we will arrive at the same place.

In the meantime, we hope that the readers and viewers both enjoy the journey. Or journeys, as the case may be. Sometimes butterflies grow into dragons.

((I am closing comments on this post. Take your discussions to the other sites I have mentioned….)

They’re just doing the best they can, people! Translation: “Please stop hitting me! Also, please go away and leave me alone.” What a complete fucking coward! Whatever happened to all that “debate and honest dialogue” for which you were calling, George? I also enjoy his resort to the patented Sam Harris Defense, in which the ex post facto claim of having anticipated a response is considered tantamount to rebutting it.

Keep in mind that Wobegon Boy was published in 1997. SJW women turning on the white men in their midst is nothing new, and yet every Tollefson and Martin and Scalzi and Sanford and Hines believes it can’t possibly happen to them because their little SJW hearts are pure.

Sexism and ideological bias in science fiction

Since we’re often informed by the SJWs how vital it is that more women are given awards on the basis of inclusivity, let’s begin with putting the facts out there. We already know, per Mike Glyer, that Hugos have been awarded to 19 conservative winners since 1996. I went through the list of Hugo Awards by Year and counted the number of women awarded, then counted the total number of awards given out. When more than one individual was awarded, I added the relevant percentage of that particular award (so one women in a group of four counted as 0.25, for example), and rounded up to a single decimal at the end.

2014: 9 of 17
2013: 4.8 of 17
2012: 8.8 of 17
2011: 6 of 16
2010: 2.8 of 16
2009: 4.5 of 15
2008: 1.3 of 14
2007: 3 of 14
2006: 3 of 13
2005: 4.8 of 14
2004: 4.7 of 13
2003: 4 of 13
2002: 1.5 of 13
2001: 2 of 13
2000: 1 of 12
1999: 1 of 12
1998: 0.5 of 12
1997: 1.5 of 12
1996: 1.5 of 13

TOTAL: 65.7 women have won 24.7 percent and 19 conservatives have won 7.1 percent of the 266 Hugo Awards given out since 1996. This is despite the fact that conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 1.6 in the USA, which means that conservatives are underrepresented by a factor of 11.3, versus women being underrepresented by a factor of 2.

Now, if the SJWs are to be believed, sexism is a serious problem but there is absolutely no evidence of left wing ideological bias. They keep repeating this despite the fact that the anti-right wing bias in science fiction is observably 5.6 times worse than the purported sexism about which they so often complain.

Which merely points us once more towards the truth of the lesson: SJWs always lie. And if the numbers aren’t enough to convince the more rhetorically minded, there is also a considerable quantity of anecdotal evidence of bias such as this comment from Martin Wisse:

To be honest, Worldcon fandom has been caught with its pants down by the Puppies, too slow to react to the first two attempts to game the Hugos. We all thought, and I was no exception, that after the Puppy nominees were trashed in the actual voting last year, the spoiled brats behind it would get the hint and fuck off.

Well, not so much. But at least we all know how seriously to take their pose of inclusivity.

The common factor

XDPaul points out that the parties responsible for what the Worldcon community is lamenting are not either the Sad or Rabid Puppies:

This is supposed to be a literary award, not playground taunts and bullying

If that was generally understood Sad Puppies would’ve never happened in the first place!

Exactly.

Scalzi should never have – unprovoked – called that guy he didn’t know a “a jackass, and a fairly ignorant jackass at that” in order to curry favor with established authors. All of this could have been prevented, had Scalzi not turned fandom into his private personal playground specially designed for these taunts and bullying of which you complain.

Taunts, bullying…and awards-gathering, of course. I know, let’s call it “Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded,” that epic scholarly work so highly regarded in the annals of SF.

If you want to condemn the one who set this all off, I think the former President of the SFWA, initial taunter, rape humorist, “easiest difficulty setting there is,” master of the recommendation list, and award-winning Professional Fan Writer John Scalzi is not a bad place to look.

Everyone here knows why I went to the trouble of getting John Scalzi’s traffic statistics and unmasking him as the liar and fraud that he is. Perhaps fewer understand why Larry Correia is no fonder of the little charlatan, but Steve Moss explains:

 From what I can determine,the Corriea-Scalzi feud started as follows:
1. Ms. USA makes comments about women’s self-defense.
2. Corriea supports her comments.
3. Jim Hines’ criticizes Ms. USA and Corriea, in not too pleasant terms.
4. Corriea pins Hines’ ears back.
5. Scalzi goes after Corriea, and is his usually condescending and insulting self.
6. Scalzi gets his butt kicked in the Twitter exchange.
7. Many hot tempered words follow for the next 2-3 years year, with no sign of abating.

And then, of course, I would be remiss if I failed to recall this hilarious exchange:

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi Apr 8
I wish Larry Corriea had the balls to admit the reason he started the Sad Puppies campaign was that he just wanted a Hugo so fucking bad.
45 retweets 66 favorites

Larry Correia @monsterhunter45
I turned down my Hugo nomination and you still didn’t make the ballot.
360 retweets 501 favorites

The post-Loncon period in which McRapey repeated the very sort of falsehoods that the International Lord of Hate predicted the SJWs would attempt to put forth also merits mention. Meanwhile, Hugo nominee Kary English notes that the self-proclaimed inclusivity crowd has been more than a little bit hostile to outsiders, even to the point of harassing us with violent language.

“I’ve pretty much lost count of all the times I’ve seen someone say the Puppies should be shot, euthanized, put down, drowned, etc. It’s not cool. It’s not acceptable”

Perhaps someone should enquire of Sasquan if people who have harassed Hugo nominees in such violent fashion will be banned from the con, as I expect such statements are likely in clear violation of their Harassment Code. And finally, we have more evidence of the oft-observed truism; SJWs always lie:

Owlmirror on May 16, 2015 at 9:43 pm said:

    Scalzi should never have – unprovoked – called that guy he didn’t know a “a jackass, and a fairly ignorant jackass at that”

You mean VD’s anti-Semitism and misogyny don’t count as provocation?

    All of this could have been prevented, had Scalzi not turned fandom into his private personal playground specially designed for these taunts and bullying of which you complain.

You mean, VD would have not taunted and bullied anyone if not for Scalzi? What about the fact that he taunted and bullied women SF writers in the first place?

Yes, nonexistent anti-Semitism and misogyny don’t count as provocation, for the obvious reason that they do not exist. Nor does a single column addressing an attack on a disease-stricken Michael Kinsley by Susan Estrich and explaining the toxic effect of feminism on female intellects qualify as taunting and bullying women SF writers.

It’s fascinating to see how the SJWs resolutely refuse to see the obvious and recongize the single common factor in everything from award campaigning and pro Fan Writers to the culture war and the increased incivility in SF. This is particularly obvious once you take into account that I was an SFWA member participating in various events and activities without incident for seven years prior to McRapey first surfacing in the SF community.

However, the most interesting bit in the comments might have been easily missed, as Mike Glyer raised one of the few relevant points to be found amidst the lunatic sea of SJW rhetoric:

“How many conservatives have won the Hugo in the past 2 decades again?”

I just did a count and found 19 Hugos have been won by conservatives since 1996.

The determination of who is and who is not a conservative may be arbitrary, but as Mike has shown himself to be impartial throughout, there is no reason to quibble over it. This means that out of the approximately 304 266 Hugo Awards* that have been given out since 1996, only 7.1 percent have gone to conservatives. It will probably surprise no one here to learn that this factual observation of extreme left-wing bias in science fiction fandom was immediately met with the suggestion that conservatives simply aren’t very good at writing science fiction and fantasy.

“It could be just that Conservatives are not (at the present) very good at creating art…. Certainly (some) Conservative art in the PAST was good. Maybe there is
something about the current Conservative movement which curtails their
ability to create art? IDK.”

That could be. Or, you know, perhaps there is something to the assertion that nearly every single right-of-center author, male and female alike, has made about aggressive left-wing ideological gatekeeping in science fiction and fantasy. After all, the mere possibility that a few more right-of-center authors might win a Hugo has not only prompted a hate campaign in the international media, but open calls for changing the rules.

*This is a correction. I originally multiplied the number of years by the number of awards given out in 2014, but fewer awards were given in previous years.

Mailvox: whitewashing history at Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s gatekeepers are up to their usual shenanigans, in this case, attempting to casually brush the topic of Cultural Marxism under the carpet to keep it from innocent eyes:

In case you haven’t noticed the “Cultural Marxism” entry to wikipedia has been deleted and replaced by “conspiracy theory” at the body of the “Frankfurt School” page.

I noticed this a few days ago.  After reading a work on Critical Race Theory which wasn’t inspired by an article I read on the Baltimore riots.  It reminded me a lot of the line of thinking that Pat Buchanan describes as Cultural Marxism in “Death of the West.”  Naturally, I looked up Cultural Marxism on wikipedia and I find that the page had been deleted and replaced.  Orwell would be proud.  To be quite honest, this really has shocked me.  Call me sheltered, but the audacity and dishonesty of it is appalling.

Being an optimist (or a masochist) I looked at the talk page to see if I couldn’t reason with someone.  Turns out that the page replacement took place in November and that a single editor it engages in some serious gate-keeping.

Over the past five months several dozen people have expressed concerns with the page and he dismissed and passive-aggressively threatened them all without answering any arguments.

I decided to engage with him, but the results are about what you’d expect.

Here’s a summary:

Me:I don’t think Cultural Marxism counts as a conspiracy by any reasonable definition and this article leans way left.  Can you please define your terms for Cultural Marxism and give me your criteria for conspiracy theory.

Him :Ok go ahead and try to prove your conspiracy theory Mr. Tin-foil hat man.  Oh and Welcome (grumble)…can you please go away…be a shame if someone were to report you for vandalism…..and did you know Satanic, baby eating, white supremacist Anders Breivik used the phrase “Cultural Marxism” in his manifesto…you don’t want to be like him do you…be a shame if you got reported….

You can imagine two days of this I’m sure.  But if you have time, I’d love to know what you think of the debate.  I’ve rarely dealt with someone so completely unwilling to actually argue all the while claiming that the battle was over before I got there and that he’s the victor. 

I’ve finally got him to consider an academic source from Paul Gottfried, but it looks like this will take time.

So, what I’d really like is you to give a shout on your blog detailing what’s happened.  It’s bigger than two guys fighting on the internet considering how many people use wikipedia, if only to get oriented in finding out more about a topic.  I know I do, or before this did.  Just a link would get more people involved.

I’ve decided to ask you because a) Castalia has published work by William Lind, one of the (if not the) coiners of the phrase “Cultural Marxism” to describe the ideology, obsessions, tactics, and behaviors of the Left and their current diffusion in society at large and b) because no one should know better than you that so-called little issues like Gamergate and the Hugos are key battlegrounds in the culture wars and will lead to bigger things. 

Honestly I think keeping wikipedia honest (as far as it’s possible) is even bigger.  This isn’t just a case of “oh no!  Somebody’s wrong on the internet!”

What do I think? I think this is simply SJWs SJWing. And what do SJWs do? The lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie. The ironic thing is that Wikipedia has a fairly extensive entry on one of the more important cultural Marxists, Herbert Marcuse, and even quotes him in some detail concerning the cultural Marxism he advocated, and which the SJWs practice.

  • “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”[17]
  • “Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”[17]

It should come as no surprise that cultural Marxists, which is what the SJWs manifestly are, don’t want people to understand their core doctrine or its roots in the misapplication of a failed economic theory.

Islands in a sea of rhetoric

I stopped commenting at File 770 as it proved to be another exercise in demonstrating the truth of Aristotle’s dictum about those who cannot be instructed. Give them dialectic and they shamelessly attempt to pick it apart, some honestly, most dishonestly, while constantly declaring that any errors or falsehoods on their part are irrelevant. Give them rhetoric to meet them at their level and they either cry about it or concoct pseudo-dialectic to explain why it’s not valid.

Example 1
VD: SJWs always lie.
SJW: I told the truth once back in 2007. See, you’re totally wrong. Your whole argument is disproved. You are a bad person. DISQUALIFIED!

Example 2
VD: I stopped commenting at File 770.
SJW: You said you stopped commenting and then LEFT ONE MORE COMMENT THERE! See, you’re totally wrong. Your whole argument is disproved. Aristotle! You are a bad person. DISQUALIFIED!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

But the SJW theatre of the absurd aside, the continuing Hugo coverage at File 770 makes for interesting reading, particularly as the few remaining commenters possessing intellectual integrity one-by-one throw up their hands and stop trying to force the relevant facts through the SJW’s cast-iron skulls. A pair of neutrals recounted typical experiences, as one of them juxstaposed his treatment at various Puppy sites versus SF-SJW Central:

Brief Side note re: Making Light. I posted there, maybe 4 times in a discussion a month or so ago. Never a name called, never a nasty word, did not attack anyone, and was in the middle of a dialogue with another poster that came across as reasonable. My posts were disemvowelled and the board owner called me a liar. I’ve posted several times here, and at Larry’s, Brad’s, and Sarah Hoyt’s boards. At least one time I got shouted at a little, but no one edited me away to nonsense. That makes me more sympathetic with the folks not grooming their comment sections /shrug

AG on May 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm said: Regarding disemvowelling at Making Light, I took part in the initial discussion about voting rules, which as a mathematician I found very interesting. There was a contributor there (I don’t remember his name) who was an expert on voting systems and made the most valuable contributions. I certainly learned a lot from his posts. Then he made a post where he mentioned his web site (which was on topic, because it was about voting systems and potentially of interest to the people who were taking part in that discussion) and he was disemvowelled, which is something that I had never seen before and found absolutely bizarre.

Ostensibly the reason was for spamming, although as I said the poster was the one who had made the most valuable contributions to the discussion and the link was not off-topic. Talking about it, he got several more posts disemvowelled. I respect owners’ right to moderate content in their sites, but I found the practice of disemvoweling abusive and humiliating, more indicative of a petty bully in charge showing her power than of a serious moderator, and it convinced me that I did not want to have anything to do with that site.

The Making Light crew is what it is, and what it has been for the past decade. Another former neutral expressed some degree of surprise at the insistence that the Puppy tactics have been in any way worse than past tactics utilized in the SF field:

Steve Moss on May 14, 2015 at 3:20 pm said:

David W. @ 3:08 pm- So log-rolling is acceptable, with all that implies, but slates are not?

Accepting for argument’s sake the definitions of some, a slate is a list of public recommendation with a common political interest. That’s bad.

Log-rolling, quietly horse-trading votes based on self-interest (I want to win and need to be “strategic”), that’s okay.

Leaving aside the debated to death argument on slates (which I disagree is bad), it occurs to me the greatest sin the SP/RP have committed is exposing the Hugo process to the light of day. Now that more fans know: 1) that it didn’t/doesn’t take much to get a nomination; and, 2) about the behind the scenes chicanery, the Hugo loses some of its luster.

I think the position of some in fandom is laughable. What SP/RP did is the exact same thing; they just did it better and publicly. And that’s unforgivable.

It’s not surprising that the SJWs are already working very hard to change the rules because we’ve shown up and operated in an above-board manner. Instead of playing coy and disingenuous and plausibly deniable, we simply said “hey, vote for these works.” Note that it wasn’t all that long ago that SJWs in SFWA changed the Nebula rules to HIDE the evidence of all the log-rolling that was taking place there. They are always determined to hide what is actually taking place under the rocks where they dwell, which is why our straightforward tactics are so abhorrent to them.

UPDATE: While this will no doubt set the rhetoricals spinning again, it was too painful to watch people opining ineptly about whether Scalzi’s LOCK IN was a relative failure (truth) or a massive success that only proves that John Scalzi is a massive success in everything he does (SJW narrative). So, against my better judgment, I pointed out the completely obvious that had somehow managed to elude the rocket scientists commenting at File 770:

Forget Old Man’s War and all the
hardcover vs softcover vs audio and so forth. The reason both Scalzi and
PNH were so disappointed by Lock In’s sales is obvious:

“Lock In’s sales are for the first 8 months”: 10,000

Redshirts first seven months: 26,604

As every writer here knows, success is a) relative and b) takes
trajectory into account. Doing one-third the numbers with considerably
more marketing expense than your previous book is not, in most quarters,
considered a desirable trajectory.

Scalzi is an inflated midlist writer. He has likely peaked at a point
much higher than most SF writers ever reach. It’s an incredible
accomplishment, especially if one takes into account how little talent
or originality he possesses. There is no shame in that.

Where there is shame is claiming that you have 2 million pageviews
when you truly have only 305,000. Where there is shame is aggressively
campaigning for nine Hugo nominations, and then campaigning for more
because two more than Arthur C. Clarke is not enough.

That is an apples-to-apples comparison. Hardcover to hardcover. And if that simple recitation of relevant facts isn’t sufficient to convince you, then obviously no information is sufficient to instruct you or change your mind.

SJWs always cheat

The Making Light SJWs are upset because Tor isn’t collecting its usual Hugo tribute for its predictably mediocre romances in space, sanctimonious PC space lectures, and red-hot necrobestials, so naturally they are lobbying hard to change the rules. WCJ points out what they’re up to:

The method that the Making Light cabal used to evaluate these satisfaction formulae was to simulate elections using the different formulae and look at the outcome. They decided in advance which outcomes would be considered “satisfying:” those that closely replicate the 2013 Hugo shortlists given the known data from the 2013 ballot, and those that excluded or reduced the quantity of nominees of a hypothetical collection of Sad Puppy voters added to the simulations. A “satisfaction” function was regarded as good by the Making Light cabal if it answered positively to that criterion.

This isn’t just sinister, it’s diabolical. Because what they’re doing, quite literally, is defining “satisfaction” not to be YOUR satisfaction, but rather THEIR satisfaction. The function that is supposed to model your happiness as a voter was chosen by someone who is not you, based on criteria that were designed entirely for their benefit and not yours, without any reference whatsoever to your opinion.

It’s vastly amusing that they are doing exactly what we predicted and are trying to change the rules even though no one has won anything yet. However, speaking as a game designer, I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about stopping intelligent exploits without a process that allows for dynamic responses. For example, let’s say they manage to ram through the 4/6 plan, whose author, Chris Gerrib, foolishly believes is somehow magically capable of preventing Rabid Puppies from locking the SJWs out of the awards again in the future.

The answer is entirely obvious. You didn’t seriously think there was no shadowy purpose behind the numbering of the minions, did you? Am I not your Supreme Dark Lord? And are you not entertained?

SJWs in OSS II

It’s being further investigated by others closer to the OSS dev community, but the evidence about SJWs invading Open Source Software is bolstered by additional emails posted to the London Ruby User’s Group mailing list:

Really great you both brought this up. I’ve been responsible for building up a small tech team within Barclays and we’ve had a push towards much more diversity. This has been driven by the huge lack of diversity within the existing tech teams. We are tasked with building prototypes which are not business critical so we have a lot of space to move around with then other areas of the company which require levels of experience & current ability which traditionally bias against minorities facing oppression.

  • We avoided posting adverts on tech mailing lists and in places where women and minorities are underrepresented, instead using the same budget we would have used on places like unicorn jobs, in places such as in Ethnic minority related magazines and publications, LGBT related publications and websites (such as out.com). The cost of advertising was so expensive in tech related spaces we could cover many more adverts in spaces that would reach to minorities and we got an excellent response.
  • We never assume to know someones preferred pronoun. When responding to applicants we always ask for their preferred pronoun, even if it seems obvious (there’s more than 2). The response to this has been great so far.
  • We’ve effectively had to create our own internal structure independent from the rest of the company to ensure that diversity is catered for. Slowly but surely though, we’re affecting the rest of the business.

So far we’ve grown the team to 6. 4 of us identify as female (with one
being transgender) and 5 of us are PoC.

That’s pure SJW entryism at work. Notice how the SJWs a) are safely ensconced in an area where they can avoid being held accountable for providing objective business-critical results, b) have created their own independent internal structure, c) have long range goals to enforce their ideology on the rest of the company.

It also shows how you can best hunt down and eliminate SJWs from your organization. Look for them in non-critical roles where the focus is internal rather than external. And don’t expect to be able to rely upon objective metrics to provide an excuse for firing them, they actively avoid being measured or held accountable in any way. Your best bet is to nail them on their consistent refusal to abide by company guidelines, their failure to fulfill certain specified responsibilities or follow clear directions, or their repeated hiring of people who are observably unqualified.

SJW summarizes SJWism

At File 770:

Gully Foyle on May 10, 2015 at 9:52 am said:
Dynamo, just shut it. Tolerance does not demand that one tolerate the intolerant. The open minded need not embrace those that would destroy their society.

Tolerance does not demand toleration. Inclusivity justifies exclusion. Did Orwell have them pegged or what? Black is white. War is peace. We have always been at war with Eastasia. And notice the claim that it is “their society”. Not ours. Not the moderates. The SJWs.

CrisisEraDynamo’s response was very good:

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Define everything you don’t like
as “intolerance” and poof! No silencing, even when boldly declaring
there’s no place for dissenters.

We’re not fighting fire with fire

We’re fighting fire with artillery. Joshua W. Herring claims that we don’t understand moderates like him, while at the same time completely failing to understand the Rabid Puppies or our objectives:

That completely misunderstands the reason that we (that is, those of us who have some sympathy for the Sad Puppies but almost none for the Rabid Puppies) advocate tolerance for the SJW crowd.

We are not under any delusions about how SJWs act. We’ve seen all the same evidence you have. It’s QUITE clear that the a great many feminism and/or “diversity” and/or gay rights activists don’t give a fig about tolerance or inclusiveness. Tolerance and inclusiveness are just tools they use to get what they really want; they aren’t virtues for them.

Thing is: they are for us.

It’s always the same problem with Vox. He claims to want to live and let live, but there’s never any evidence of it. And it’s always the same excuse: “they” won’t play nice, so why should he? This is sensible enough if reserved for extreme cases, but when absolutely every post on his blog that deals with SJWs is about the need to deny them a seat, the line between their tactics and his becomes impossible to draw.

Here’s the rub: if somebody doesn’t start playing nice, it just never happens.

And here’s the question: do you think it will be the SJWs who start playing nice? It won’t. We know that from all past experience. So, as the addage goes, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

If you want tolerance and inclusiveness, you start by being tolerant and inclusive. It’s not that it doesn’t matter that “they” aren’t tolerant and inclusive, because obviously it would be nicer if they were. The fact that they’re not makes our job a lot harder. But our job is still to get to a community that’s tolerant and inclusive, and you just can’t do that with purges.

Who said anything about tolerance or inclusiveness? Our job is not to get to a community that is tolerant or inclusive. Our job, our duty, our calling, is to destroy SJWs and SJW ideology. We are not part of the Worldcon community. We don’t support tolerance of SJWs. We don’t support the inclusion of SJWs. We intend to destroy their influence and their ideology and to render the latter as popular and as viable in science fiction as National Socialism in Israel today.

I will not “live and let live” with SJWs for the obvious reason that it is not possible for anyone to live and let live with them. You cannot live and let live with anyone whose ideology is totalitarian, who genuinely believe they have a right to tell you what is, and what is not, okay for you to think, write, and say. You cannot compromise with anyone who believes they have a self-appointed right to dictate what others read, what others write, what others review, and what others publish. You cannot be tolerant of those who claim the right to decide what is “problematic” and what is “unacceptable” and what “there is no place for” in science fiction.

They have, somewhat successfully, established an Index Informatorum Prohibitorum that declares what ideas there are “no place for” in science fiction. You cannot teach them by example, any more than you can apologize to them and expect them to take it for what it is and accept it rather than take it as an admission of weakness and use it as a weapon against you. The Index, and its inquisitors, must be destroyed.

We will relentlessly oppose them. We will ruthlessly humiliate them. We will harry them and make their miserable lives even more miserable until they completely abandon their totalitarian ideology. Because they cannot leave others alone, we will not leave them alone. And we will win in the end.

We will never play nice with them. We will destroy every last vestige of their pernicious ideology. I have no problem with writers of the left who wish to write anti-X, but I am at war with SJW writers who claim that there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X. And I don’t care what X is, substitute the intellectual bugaboo of your choice there, whether it is racism, communism, misogyny, misandry, anti-Eskimoism, Eskimo supremacy, or anything else.

Like all moderates, Herring completely fails to understand how to accomplish anything but Noble Defeat and Losing the Right Way. Tolerance of totalitarianism is not a virtue, it is surrender. Accepting the inclusion of SJW entryists is not virtuous, it is submission. And while tolerance and inclusiveness may be virtues in the eyes of the moderates, we view them as little more than necessary evils that are not always possible.

The significant point is this: SJWs ARE the extreme case. Which is why the Rabid Puppy position is the sensible one.

As long as SJW ideology is accepted in mainstream SF/F and SJWs are welcome in their castle, we will besiege the walls. The non-SJWs in science fiction can either go down fighting us in the interest of a cause they theoretically oppose or they can cast out the ideologists and return to the Ellisonian concept of SF being a place where dangerous ideas are welcome again. All dangerous ideas, no matter how offensive they are to anyone.

And they can’t cast us out because we reject their community in its presently diseased state and want no part of it until the SJW cancer is excised. An SJW is anyone who believes that the quality of a message’s delivery vehicle can be judged primarily by the content of the message. An SJW is anyone who believes that any idea is intrinsically “problematic”, “not okay”, “unacceptable”, or that there is “no place in science fiction” for a particular idea or individual accused of harboring that idea.

An SJW is an individual who fundamentally rejects the Ellisonian vision of science fiction as a place that welcomes dangerous ideas. All dangerous ideas.

For example, if you think there is no place for racism in science fiction, you are an SJW. It is no different than if you think there is no place for atheism or for women in science fiction. Either all ideas, however controversial, are welcome and legitimate, or the science fiction community is engaged in a straightforward power struggle to determine whose morals will be imposed on everyone else in the field.

Science fiction can either reject the SJW ideology and abandon all the imposed diversity thought-policing or accept a long and vicious war over which moral code shall be law. Rabid Puppies is presenting the SF community with two choices: either embrace and defend the idea of complete intellectual freedom in science fiction or fight us over the shape of the Science Fiction Code Authority of the future.

And everyone should understand that we Rabid Puppies will never, ever accept, under any circumstances, the ongoing SJW attempt to impose their code on everyone. That is not an option.