Tag: SJW

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.

SJWs attack Open Source Software

Paging ESR… paging ESR… ERS, please report with your weapons loaded. We have an SJW breach in OSS. #OSSGATE operatives, please report to your activation nodes.

8 May 2015 Eve Braun (eve.t.braun@gmail.com) wrote: Two other things we implemented which aided the recruitment
process:

We followed advice which is quickly becoming the industry
norm. Never look at someones Github profile until you have made the
decision to hire or not hire them and do not let it influence you.
Github profiles tend to favor CIS White men over most minorities in
a number of ways. CIS white men often have more spare time or chose
to pursue building up an impressive portfolio of code rather than
women or minorities who have to deal with things like raising
children or instiutionalised racism. Some in the SocJus community
have even said that technically companies could possibly even be
breaking discriminatory law by allowing peoples github profiles and
publicly available code to influence their hiring decisions – watch
this space.

(More info: http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-the-oss-community)

We used Randi Harper’s (https://twitter.com/freebsdgirl)
blockbot to assess applicants twitter profiles for problematic or
toxic viewpoints. This may sound a bit extreme but some of the
staff here suffer from Aspergers & PTSD and our top priority is
to ensure that they don’t get put in triggering situations.Making a
wrong hire could present a scenario where the employee could be
triggered on a daily basis by another employee with an oppressive
viewpoint. Other than from a diversity standpoint, from a business
standpoint these sorts of negative interactions can cost a company
a huge amount of time & money in employees taking off sick
days. When all the employees are on the same page the synergy in
the office aids productivity.

Still think the anti-SJW crusade is an overreaction? There is only one answer to them, only one cure: relentless rejection. Look to #GamerGate and #SadPuppies for inspiration and ideas on how to push them back.


Notice that the SJW Eve Braun is trying to make a corporate virtue out of saving company time and money by not hiring “CIS white men with “problematic or toxic viewpoints”. Of course, SJWs always lie.

Get him to neurology, stat!

Seriously, David Gerrold is not merely incoherent, he’s directly contradicting himself:

Here’s what I suggest. Consider this a starting place for the conversation, not a finished proposal. First, we as a community need to reaffirm our commitment to
inclusiveness — everybody’s welcome, regardless of political views,
religion, sexual orientation, gender, skin color, ethnicity, place of
national origin, body shape, disability, age, whatever. The only
requirement is a love of fantasy and science fiction and respect for
other participants.

My own rule about discussion is that
disagreement should be about issues, not personalities. This is because
most of us have issues, not all of us have personalities. I would
recommend this as a general policy as well. I might think that X or Y is
a big stinky poo-poo head, but speaking it aloud is not the best way to
win points in a debate.

Second, after we reaffirm our commitment to inclusiveness, we need to
consider whether or not the Hugo nominating rules need to be adjusted. I
believe that the administrators of the award should have the power to
disqualify slate-ballots, but the mechanisms for this might be
controversial….

But the point I’m working toward is a difficult one — it’s a
conversation that we tend to shy away from. But any functioning
community, does have the right to protect itself from disruptive
agencies. Groups can and do disinvite those who spoil the party.

The SFWA expelled Vox Day for his unprofessional behavior. Fandom as a
community, and the Worldcon as an institution, should have the same
power to invite someone to the egress. Other conventions have taken
steps to protect themselves from toxic and disruptive individuals — and
based on the back-and-forth conversations I’ve seen, and as unpleasant a
discussion as this will be, maybe it’s time to have a discussion about
the mechanisms for shutting down someone who has publicly declared his
intention to destroy the awards.

That’s the point. We cannot
talk about healing while the knife is still being twisted in the wound. I
can’t speak for the sad puppies, I can’t tell them what to do — but I
would hope that they would recognize that being perceived as standing
next to a man who wants to destroy the system is not the best place to
stand.

TL;DR: Worldcon must be inclusive and tolerant, so we must expel Vox Day and anyone associated with him in any way who fails to publicly denounce him before presenting themselves to us and requesting absolution.

Gerrold still hasn’t figured out that there is no way to expel someone from a group who doesn’t belong to it and doesn’t want to belong to it. But I like where he’s going with his suggestions. As I have often pointed out, it’s hard to destroy things from the outside, and it’s a lot easier if you can get the insiders to do it for you.

It’s also amusing to see them insist that they are not at all political, when the first point is a call to establish SJW ideology as a core principle. As Brad Torgersen has said, the fish don’t understand that the water in which they swim is wet.

An apology to GamerGate

SJWs always lie, and sooner or later, the honest non-SJW is eventually going to realize that so long as he, or in this case, she, pays enough attention:

My name is Sofie Liv, i’m a young woman from Denmark, I love playing video games and sometimes review them.

And I feel like I owe you all the greatest apology. I’m ashamed, and I want to apologies. I can only apologies for myself so here goes.

We all know about the Zoe Quinn and Sarkeesian thing that happened so long ago. Back then as I was just minding my own buisness with my web review show, reviewing the nerd things I love so much on the Agonybooth, I was given information that these women had been threatened, that they had been driven into misery, that gamergate was behind all of it, that all these second grade photoshopped images were proof of it, that these women were doxxed and got rape threats on a daily basis.

And like a complete sucker, I bought it! I suckered it up, I bought into it, and I am ashamed. No part of me would believe that someone would downright lie about rape threats, it didn’t even occour to me that they would lie about their own mental state, because no part of me could ever believe that someone would lie about those things.

Then slowly arguments started crawling up, I raised my eyebrow at quite a bit of the things Sarkeesian openly said, I had to point out. “That isn’t right.”

At that point I had taken a new stand… I am not with Sarkeesian, but neither am I with Gamergate, I think they both did wrong. Still, stupid me hadn’t done prober fact checking, but just taken peoples word for these things happening.

So many people in my circle, so many people following me pointed to the harrashment of these women as plain fact…. I now know this is untrue. Now I have finally done the prober actual research and found the sources, and I know i’ve been lied to… and as a sucker I suckered it up. I called Gamergate things, hinted at you guys being imoral, I switched from reviewing movies to review another medium that I love, video games, and called it a stand against the idea women can’t be gamers… an idea I now know, doesn’t even exsist!

Now my game reviews has been turned into a stand up against the Sarkeesian ideals, because now I actually feel it’s important to stand up to her and call her bullshit for what it is… It’s bullshit. She’s full of bullshit, and I can only apologies that I bought so easily into it as a brain dead sheep.

What I want to say with all of this is that, I think you people have done absolutely fantastic. In spite of all this bad rep you still managed to stand up and stand true to what this is actually about.

Apology accepted. This is why it is so important for us to stand our ground. This is why it is so important for us to speak the truth, and keep speaking the truth, whether anyone believes us or not, whether the media calls us names or not, and whether people offer us friendship and approval or not.

The one thing SJWs absolutely rely upon is honest people NOT calling them out. They don’t expect to convince everyone, they merely want to silence anyone who threatens their false narratives. So stop playing along with them. Stop sitting there in mute disapproval of their lies and misrepresentations, stand up, and declare “that is not true!”

SJWs are the sons and daughter of the Father of Lies. They are the People of the Lie and they can only be defeated by the Sword of Truth.

Never retreat, never apologize

Brad Torgersen
Correia also likes women. We’re not sure about Scalzi on that count. If you know what I mean.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
Brad Torgersen attempts to insult me by implying I’m gay; I respond. He attempts an apology; I respond to that too.

Does no one listen or learn? Never, EVER apologize to SJWs! Case in point: “The apology was worse than the ini­tial attempted slur — it rein­forced
the fact that Torg­ersen thinks calling someone gay is a slur.”

I repeat. NEVER APOLOGIZE TO SJWs. They will see it as fear, take the apology, and use it as a club with which to beat you. Never back down to them, never retreat, never apologize.Notice that this was all posted AFTER Torgersen apologized to Scalzi.

    Hur hur, homophobia’s a gas when you’re a Sad Puppy!
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

    Again: I’m mostly sad for the Sad Puppies. So much insecurity and envy and anger and need. For their own sakes, I wish they were happy.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

    Note that my pity for the Sad Puppies doesn’t preclude me pointing out they are assholes. And that they’ve made the active choice to be so.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

    Also, if I DID like men more than women, so what? That would be a perfectly good thing, nor would I be the slightest bit ashamed of it.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

    If Brad Torgersen wants to insult me, insinuating I’m gay won’t work. It’s not an insult to be gay. Be an insult to be a Sad Puppy, however.
    — John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 4, 2015

If it’s not an insult to be gay, then why is McRapey acting as if it is an insult? And how has Brad Torgersen damaged his potentially promising career by not insulting someone?

mintwitch ‏@mintwitch
Brad is just… so sad. He’s completely lost his grip, and unfortunately probably damaged a potentially promising career.

John Scalzi ‏@scalzi
If he has, I suspect he will attribute it to his politics rather than his personal behavior.

So, just a single insult of the wrong individual is sufficient to damage a promising career. That’s fascinating, in light of how we have been repeatedly assured that there isn’t any cabal or conspiracy or collection of people who will attempt to torpedo your career in science fiction over mere differences of opinion. After all, was it not Orson Scott Card’s personal behavior to which the SJWs objected when they attacked the Ender’s Game movie?

Was it not my personal behavior to which they objected when they attacked me on the basis of a syndicated op/ed column?

In the meantime, AN EDUCATIONAL DIALOGUE from the Evil Legion of Evil:

John Scalzi: “I’d rather like men than to be a Sad Puppy.”

Minion 189: “What do you mean when you say ‘like men’? Do you mean in the manner of owing someone a big favor in the Ground Forces?

John Scalzi: “Um, yeah.”

Big Gay Steve: “This can be arranged. I know a guy.”

John Scalzi: “SQUEEEE!”

The End

I don’t know about you, but I find it somewhat surprising that McRapey would publicly express a preference for being sodomized to seeing the likes of Jim Butcher or John C. Wright win a Hugo Award. It’s not exactly what you’d call a binary option.

Patience is a strategic virtue

An informative dialogue between members of the Dread Ilk:

Ticticboom: “Larry Correia and Brad Torgensen have mentioned that most of their
interactions with Vox have been asking him not to burn the Hugos down.
What the SJWs don’t realize is how downright forgiving and tolerant Vox
is compared to what they think of as his followers.”

Vile Faceless Minion 156: “Agreed. When I see interviews where the left twists Vox’s (or another truthteller’s) words, calls names and basically spit on those I appreciate for standing up for Western Civilization… I feel blinding rage and a desire to destroy. Vox shrugs and presses onwards. I don’t understand this calm moderation and cannot maintain it.”

I feel flashes of emotional reaction just like anyone else. I know what it is like to feel the blinding rage and harbor the intense desire to destroy. The difference is that I spent six years in a very hard school learning not to trust such feelings or to give into them. In the martial arts, when you react emotionally, when you throw caution to the wind, you pay for it, and you often pay for it in pain.

The best, fastest, hardest kick I ever threw in my life was in my fifth year, when I was sparring my sensei one afternoon. We were going at it hard and fast. I was holding nothing back and he was probably going about 90 percent. He feinted with a left jab, then pulled back-and-up as he often did; reading it correctly, I moved in and launched a skipping front sidekick that would have taken a lesser fighter’s head off. I mean, it was a rocket! I had him absolutely dead to rights and I knew it.

But somehow, he managed to lift his head up and turn it so that my heel barely brushed the side of his chin. He ducked and leaped sideways to safety before I could follow it up, smiled broadly, and said, “Now THAT was close. But not close enough!”

I completely lost it. It was maddening. I couldn’t BELIEVE that I’d read him perfectly, timed him perfectly, threw the perfect kick, and STILL didn’t catch the bastard cleanly. I went after him hard with my hands, he retreated, blocking everything, until finally, in frustration, I literally leaped at him and threw a haymaker at his head. This was insanely stupid, and in five years I’d never made such an unmitigated error before, but I was seeing red. My sensei told me later that he had so much time, and I’d left myself so open by leaving my feet and extending myself, that he actually had time to think “I cannot believe he did that” as he ducked under the wild punch and came up and across with a rear-hand shot to the body, which in combination with my forward momentum hit me so hard that it not only knocked the wind out of me, it actually lifted me higher off the ground on his fist.

I was lucky that I didn’t rupture anything. I’ve been knocked out and I’ve had bones broken, but that was the hardest anyone has ever hit me. I went down in what we called the full “armadillo” and stayed down. Getting up was not an option;  I couldn’t breathe and I couldn’t even roll over onto my back. It felt like I’d been hit by a charging bull. My abdomen was bruised for days and if he’d hit me just a few inches to the left, I’d have had several broken ribs.

In light of that experience, consider the completely unsurprising news that Floyd Mayweather not only won last night, but won rather easily against a very highly-regarded fighter.

Floyd Mayweather Jr. spent Saturday night doing — for the most part
— what he’s done in the vast majority of his championship bouts over
the last decade. He fought strategically. He landed counterpunchers. He held to offset rallies. The significance of this one was that the opponent was Manny Pacquiao. In
a welterweight bout that’s seemingly been a generation in the making,
Mayweather controlled the action in mid ring, eluded prolonged damage
along the ropes and worked his way to a unanimous decision that earned
him the WBO welterweight title to go along with the WBA and WBC belts he
arrived with. The win boosted him to 48-0 as a pro in a 19-year career. Pacquiao is 57-6-2.

“He fought strategically.” That’s the significant quote here. Now let’s look at how fighting strategically applies to the Hugo 2015 situation. We know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the SJWs are going to vote No Award on most of the Puppy-recommended works. Some will claim to have read them all, some will proudly proclaim that they have read none, others will pretend to genuinely believe that there is not a single award-worthy work in the lot, and a few particularly foolish ones will even convince themselves they believe as much. That’s fine, we all know what their opinions are worth as the list of past winners are well-documented. The only relevant point is that they are going to do it.

So why shouldn’t we join them? Why not pour on the gasoline as they run around shrieking and lighting matches? After all, getting things nominated that the other side would No Award, then turning around and joining them to ensure no awards were given out was my original idea, which I set aside in favor of SP3 and Brad Torgersen’s ultimately futile attempt to save the Hugos from the SJWs. The reason to abandon this original objective now that it is firmly in our grasp is that the situation has developed in ways that I did not fully anticipate, thereby indicating a strategic adjustment. Why settle for burning Munich when Berlin may be within reach, especially if the munchkins are promising to burn Munich for us as we advance? Jeff Duntemann’s summary to which Mike Glyer directed our attention yesterday is informative in this regard.

It’s something like a sociological law: Commotion attracts attention.
Attention is unpredictable, because it reaches friend and foe alike. It
can go your way, or it can go the other way. There’s no way to control
the polarity of adverse attention. The only way to limit adverse
attention is to stop the commotion.

In other words, just shut up.

I know, this is difficult. For some psychologies, hate is delicious
to the point of being psychological crack, so it’s hard to just lecture
them on the fact that hate has consequences, including but hardly
limited to adverse attention.

My conclusion is this: The opponents of Sad Puppies 3 put them on the map,
and probably took them from a fluke to a viable long-term institution. I
don’t think this is what the APs intended. In the wake of the April 4
announcement of the final Hugo ballot, I’d guess the opposition has
generated several hundred kilostreisands of adverse attention, and the
numbers will continue to increase.

In other words, thanks to the SJW overreaction, our capabilities may now permit us to accomplish more than we had reasonably believed possible at the start. Brad wanted to do something that was always impossible because the SJWs are much more poisonous than he naively believed them to be. I was not surprised by their nature (which is why I was always dubious about the SP3 goal), but I was surprised by how astonishingly stupid and self-destructive their post-shortlist reactions have been. So, thanks to them, the strategic situation has now changed and it behooves us to take advantage of their mistakes. The original options as I saw them, prior to the nominations being announced, were as follows:

  1. SJWs and Puppies play it straight. Puppies win between 1 and 3 awards. Vox Day collects two more 6th of 5 participation prizes.
  2. SJWs choose nuclear option and Puppies play it straight. No Award wins
    the majority of categories. Vox Day collects two more 6th of 5
    participation prizes.
  3. SJWs and Puppies choose nuclear option. No Award wins the majority of
    categories. Vox Day collects two more 6th of 5 participation prize.

Three options, two outcomes. From a strategic perspective, Option 3 is obviously the preferable one there. It may be little hard on John C. Wright, Jim Butcher, Toni Weisskopf, and other strong finalists who might genuinely appreciate winning an award, but as I have consistently pointed out from the start, I don’t care about awards. Neither do the hundreds of Vile Faceless Minions of the Evil Legion of Evil. But this situation no longer applies. Now, with the influx of THOUSANDS of new voters, whose allegiances are unknown, there are three possible outcomes.

  1. SJWs and Puppies play it straight. Puppies win between 3 and 6 awards. Vox Day collects neither Hugo Awards nor 6th of 5 participation prizes.
  2. SJWs and Puppies choose nuclear option. No Award wins the majority of categories.Vox Day collects two more 6th of 5 participation prizes.
  3. SJWs choose nuclear option and Puppies play it straight. No Award wins the majority of categories. Vox Day collects two more 6th of 5 participation prizes.
  4. SJWs choose nuclear option and Puppies play it straight. Puppies win between 10 and 12 awards. Vox Day wins Best Editor, Short Form and finishes third, behind Toni Weisskopf and Jim Minz, in the other editorial category.

The Option 4 is a legitimate possibility if two-thirds or more of the new supporting members are Puppy sympathizers. The reason Option 4 is the more desirable outcome is because a) the results of Option 2 and Option 3 are exactly the same, and b) it will publicly break the perceived power of the SJWs under the current rules. Option 2/3 interrupts their inability to hand out awards to themselves for a single year, but Option 4 will reveal the hard limits of their influence and render them relatively impotent for the foreseeable future.

The best possible outcome is not to see them nuke themselves, as amusing as that would be, but to see them try to nuke themselves and fail, thereby demonstrating that they don’t even possess the nukes they think they have. And even if Option 4 turns out to have been beyond our reach this year, its failure is still within the range of our victory conditions. This is what it means to successfully execute a Xanatos Gambit. If we fail, we win. If we succeed, we win even bigger. Why settle for victory when we can vanquish?

Now that the science fiction SJWs have publicly declared No Award, the best possible outcome for us is for them to try to burn down the awards and fail. And that is why we should not help them do it. I very much understand the temptation to cry havoc, run amok, and gleefully set fires, but keep this in mind: while strategic arson is good, strategic occupation is glorious.

Translation: stow the flamethrowers. For now. And as for those who are tempted to freak out and overreact simply because the other side is throwing punches, keep in mind how the great champions react to getting hit.

Floyd Mayweather let Manny Pacquiao hit him with a slew of body blows, then looked Pacquiao in the eye, shook his head, and said NOPE.

SJWs always lie

“Being a “social justice warrior” means I get to read (and incidentally,
vote for on award ballots) what I want, rather than waiting to be told
by someone else what I should like and what I shouldn’t.”
 – John Scalzi, 1 May 2015

Actually, that’s almost exactly the opposite of what it means to be an SJW. That sounds considerably more like a #GamerGate position, which McRapey vehemently opposes.

Translation: Johnny Con knows he’s on the losing side and he’s trying to run his “make nice” routine. Yep.

“You’ll note I’m addressing Mr. Ringo’s argument here and not Mr.
Ringo himself. He and I get on tolerably well as humans. Do likewise,
please. Likewise, avoid gratuitous slamming of Baen,
please. This all is less about the publisher itself than it is about the
publisher being used as a stand-in for a particular worldview, which it
(or its individual employees or authors) may or may not endorse.”
  – John Scalzi, 1 May 2015

“I think both Toni Weisskopf and Jim Minz are eminently worthy of Hugo
Award editor nominations; I regret the presence of the slates makes the
argument of their consideration more complicated for so many people.”
   – John Scalzi, 1 May 2015

Contrast with this:

When Ms. Weisskopf addresses the Baen true faithful like this (as she
does both in the Baen’s Bar and on the site of Ms. Hoyt, a Baen author),
aside from anything else she’s doing, she’s engaging in the laudable
tactic of binding — or rebinding — her company’s host to her company’s
product: Baen fans are the real science fiction fans, and real science fiction fans want real science fiction, which comes from Baen. It’s a nice bit of commercial epistemic closure. So good job, Ms. Weisskopf.

Ms. Weisskopf’s unilateral attempt to establish fans of her publishing house as the One True Church, with Heinlein as its graven image, is flat out wrong. Not only are they not the One True Church, they don’t even get Robert Heinlein to themselves. They have to timeshare him with me and with many other fans who love his work, see him as an influence, and at the same time are happy to welcome anyone who wants to be part of the science fiction and fantasy community into the fold, no matter how they got there. Try to take Robert Heinlein from me, guys. See where that gets you. He’s not yours alone. You can’t gatekeep him from me.

Likewise, Ms. Weisskopf’s handwringing about what should be done about the interlopers and heretics incorrectly arrogates to her little group the ability to make any sort of decision on the matter. They can’t. Baen is not, in fact, the core of science fiction and fantasy; people who identify as Baen fans are not the only “real” science fiction and fantasy fans. 
– John Scalzi, 11 March, 2014

 Yeah, I tend to doubt she’s likely to buy it, Johnny Con. And “tolerably well as humans” should be translated as “John Ringo regards me with contempt, but I’m not done trying to suck up to him yet.”

And then there is, as usual, this: “Pretty sure that’s not the reason as far as regards Beale. I think his problem is straight-up envy.”

Mm-hmmm. Keep telling yourself that, Johnny. Perhaps one day you’ll even start to believe it.