Tag: SJW

SJWs always lie

Case in point: Mary Robinette Kowal:

Mary Robinette Kowal says:   
April 13, 2015 at 6:25 pm   

Speaking as someone who has been the repeated target of Vox Day, this strategy does not work. Until April 11, 2015, I have NEVER mentioned him on my blog. EVER. I have him blocked on all social media.

“He doesn’t attack anyone that hasn’t opened the ball up.”
HA! His first mention of me is mid-2013.

He has threatened to post where I live. And yes, he could, because he has the SFWA directory.

This idea that you can ignore him and he’ll go away is demonstrably not how it works.

What a poisonously stupid little bitch. Keep in mind this is Johnny Con’s former VP in SFWA. She is a shameless liar. I absolutely did NOT threaten to post where she lived. She publicly called me out on TWITTER about my claim that accused child molester Ed Kramer was a member of SFWA and was listed as such in the SFWA directory on June 23, 2014. The problem, of course, was that in order to provide evidence of my 100-percent correct claim by posting the relevant page from the 2010 SFWA directory, I would have to expose the names and addresses of everyone on that page, including the lying bitch herself. As it happens, Kowal, Mary Robinette (A) is directly above Kramer, Edward E. (A) on page 26 of the SFWA Directory.

This is the “proof” she cites that I “threatened to post” where she lived. Notice that they started claiming that Kramer was not a member after scrubbing his name from the online membership directory that morning. What a pity that I’d already grabbed a screenshot, knowing how these liars always lie.

Now, note that the convicted child molester Ed Kramer is not a current Active member of SFWA because he has not paid his dues… from prison. He is still eligible and can restore his Active status in the organization any time he simply pays his dues. He was absolutely a member of SFWA in 2010, as the SFWA directory showed, and he was STILL listed as a member of SFWA in their online directory as of June 24, 2014, although SFWA removed the listing only hours after I posted the screencap on my blog.

Note that SFWA member Ed Kramer “was arrested on August 25, 2000 following an anonymous tip, and
charged with molesting three teenage boys. The ensuing investigation
revealed that Kramer had previously been accused of molestation in 1997
before the alleged victim recanted. Kramer’s first attempt to serve his pre-trial detention in house arrest
lasted only a week due to a reported visit by a teenage boy. After
Kramer suffered a spinal injury in jail, Judge Debra Turner allowed him
to go back to house arrest in January 2001.This lasted until 2008.”

In any event, Mary Robinette Kowal is not only a liar, but a shameless deceiver as well. Not only did she lie about me threatening to post her address, but she lied about me not leaving her alone AFTER SHE CALLED ME OUT ON TWITTER. Sure, it’s true that she hadn’t mentioned me on her blog… because she was attacking me on Twitter.

The lesson, as always, is that SJWs always lie.

I don’t lie on the Internet, Mary. I told you it will never end. And it hasn’t, has it?

When rabbits rabbit

I’m not sure which is more amusing, this guy’s complete failure to even begin to grasp what neo-fascism is, the fact that the SJWs are pretending to take his ranting babble seriously, his claim that “If You Gave a Dinosaur a Cookie, My Love” is better than anything on the 2015 shortlist, or the severeness of the butthurt radiating from his crimson posterior:

Fuck you, Theodore Beale.

Fuck you for trying to break a thing I loved. Fuck you for doing it to serve your stupid, lame fascist ideology. More to the point, fuck you for your stupid, lame fascist ideology. Your beliefs are horrible. You’re horrible. You’re a nasty, cruel little bully, and I do not like you.

Fuck you for making me feel that way. Fuck you for the way you’ve brought this thing that I love, this celebration of great science fiction, to a point where it is full of the sort of mean and hateful desires that seem to animate you. Fuck you for dragging us all down to your sorry level. Fuck you for being so odious that we have to go there.

And fuck you for making me want you to hate me. Fuck you for all of your beliefs that amount to nothing short of hatred for the things I love. For the people I love. For the art and beautiful things that are why I get out of bed in the morning. Fuck you for living your life for the sole purpose of destroying things that I love, and for making me wish that I could destroy something of yours in retaliation. Fuck you for making me write this, in the sincere and passionate hope that it will make you feel even a moment’s unpleasantness.

And fuck you for the very real possibility that a work nominated purely because you used your noxious little voice to rally your loathsome, asshole supporters to support it might win a Hugo Award. Fuck you because it’s actually possible that you will break the Hugos successfully and demonstrate that you’re oh so much stronger than a bunch of fans who were previously just happily attending a convention and voting for stuff they loved in awards. In short, fuck you.

Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? I am afraid that the only thing this extended rabbiting managed to elicit from me was a wry smile. As for my “loathsome asshole supporters”, every article like this creates more of them because the true face of the SJW cannot be forgotten once it is revealed. And the lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie.

I particularly enjoyed the punchline: “I will not attempt to construct some absolute explanation of Theodore
Beale’s beliefs. Instead, I will construct a caricature of them.”

You don’t say….

Mailvox: the racism lens

It’s always fascinating how some people have an amazing ability to detect racism no matter how clearly the absence of racism by literally every definition is explained to them. From a discussion on Eric Flint’s blog:

I may as well go all-in here: In comments above Vox Day has repeatedly been called a “racist,” perhaps dozens of times. Have any of you ASKED him what his position is on racial differences? Have any of you READ what he has to say about racial differences? No? Then those of you who call him “racist” are simply a mob. In an attempt to educate, here is what Mr. Day wrote recently in a comment on Brad Torgersen’s blog; it was in response to the following statement by someone else (not Brad): “Vox Day believes that white people and Asians (and clearly Hispanics, since Beale is one, at least in part) are superior to black people, and he believes this inferiority of blacks is innate, genetic.”

Here is what Mr. Day wrote in response:

“Correction: I don’t have any reason to believe any one human population sub-group is intrinsically superior to any other population sub-group. That being said, both science and logic quite clearly indicate that no two population sub-groups are identical, and therefore every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric.
“It makes no more difference that you like or dislike this fact than if you disapprove of the speed of light or the rate of Earth gravity.
“I assert that an unborn female black child with a missing chromosome and an inclination to homosexuality is equal in human value and human dignity and unalienable, God-given rights to a straight white male in the prime of his life and a +4 SD IQ. How many of my dishonest critics will do the same?
“That doesn’t mean that I think it is wise to ask that particular child, when she is grown, to design the next plane on which I intend to fly. Or even to work in the air traffic control tower.
“I deal in reality as determined by history, science, and logic. And I care no more about what an equalitarian fantasist thinks about me or anything else than I do about the mentally deranged babbling in the psych ward. The world is as it is, not as we might wish it to be. If you can’t understand that, then I am among the least of your problems.”

So query: Do the above statements validate the multiple assertions above that Mr. Day is a “racist”? (Disclaimer: I’ve never met the man, nor talked to him; I have exchanged perhaps a couple of emails when I challenged a statement he made. But I do despise mindless online mobs screaming “racist!”)
Reply

    Gav says:
    April 21, 2015 at 10:39 AM

    A moment’s thought shows that his premise is completely ridiculous. Choose people A, B, C such that A & C are from one group and B from another, but A is taller than B is taller than C. So now I’ve got a metric (height) where group 1 is both superior and inferior to group 2 on the height metric. (For a real-life example, choose Robert Wadlow and his father for A & C, and Michael Jordan for B).

    You have to be not only racist but also stupid to believe that “every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric.”
 
        Mike says:
        April 21, 2015 at 12:21 PM

        This is a result of false equivocation between individuals and categories. Yes, the mean of the heights of all adult men if taller than the mean of the heights of all adult women, but that doesn’t mean all men are taller than all women.

        It ends up being a big problem in the scientific study of people. Some people have political/personal reasons to try to see one group as better than another, while other people have similar reasons to try to see no groups as being any different from each other. Both camps accuse the other side of being unscientific and ignoring the data.

        Really there is no conflict between the idea that one group may, on average, have a measurable difference than another group, and also the idea that the variance of individuals withing the groups may be much larger than the difference between the groups. But due to confirmation bias, people tend to ignore whatever part of that equation it is convenient for them to ignore.
        Reply
            Eric Flint says:
            April 21, 2015 at 12:33 PM

            The problem goes deeper than that, because there’s an intrinsic bias in the categories someone chooses in the first place. For instance, if you choose to compare “the race of whites” to “the race of blacks” you are assuming not only that such races exist but that they are the proper basis for comparison. But why should that be true? Due to the way the human race evolved, there is more genetic variation among Africans than there is between any given group of Africans and any non-African segment of humanity. The reason people think all Africans belong to the same “race” is because they share certain literally superficial features: skin color, hair and some facial features. But why should those criteria be used as the basis to define a “race” in the first place? Why not, for instance, choose the average distribution of blood types? In which case you wind up with a “racial map” of humanity that is completely different from a “racial map” drawn according to skin color, hair and facial features.

            My point is that there is an inherent bias in the way the question is posed in the first place, which makes any answer to the question automatically questionable. What defines a “racist” in the first place, intellectually speaking, is the firm conviction that “races” as defined sociologically have an actual biological reality which is more basic than any other possible differentiation. For which there is not a shred of actual evidence. It is a faith-based conviction. That’s a polite say of saying it’s just bigotry.
            Reply
                Mike says:
                April 21, 2015 at 1:59 PM

                Yes, I agree. There very definitely are biological races, if you define that as subsets of the overall human gene pool where certain collections of genes are much more prevalent than they are in the general population. But there is so much nonsense and xenophobia and misunderstanding involved that it’s a real nightmare to try to approach these questions without stepping on any land mines.

                I recommend a really interesting book called “The Sports Gene” that gives some great examples of how this can be done properly (IMO), and also some examples of where it has been done very much improperly.
                Reply
                    335522 says:
                    April 21, 2015 at 2:13 PM

                    With all due respect to all of you, I believe you’re missing the point. Please read the third paragraph by Vox Day that begins “I assert that an unborn female black child….” And then answer the question that I posed at the end, please (it being notable that not one of the responses addresses it).

The following quote from that exchange is an astonishing assertion that clearly demonstrates both the intellectual inferiority as well as the logical incapacity of the SJWs:

“You have to be not only racist but also stupid to believe that “every population sub-group is either superior or inferior to another sub-group on the basis of any chosen metric.”

Quite to the contrary, you have to be utterly stupid and wholly irrational to deny that assertion, or else possess hitherto-unknown evidence demonstrating that every human population sub-group is absolutely and entirely equal across the board. Every single group has an average, a mean, and a median, regardless of the metric chosen. None of those three statistics are likely to be precisely equal to the average, the mean, and the media of any other group.

At no point have I EVER claimed, suggested, implied, hinted, or intimated that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of one human population group is superior to EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of another one. And anyone who claims that I ever have is either lying or simply too dim to bother even attempting to talk down to.

The idea that “races” don’t exist is simply antiscientific dogma. They might as well deny that “species” and “groups” exist while they’re at it.

Critique by identity

I find it amusing how invariably McCarthyite the SJWs playing critic reveal themselves to be:

Over and over again, we see the mechanism by which power re-asserts itself when challenged. With a gymnastic leap, those on the defensive become the underdogs, cruelly repressed by the BBC, feminists, people from Islington, some nebulous “elite” or the suggestion that sometimes a female character in a videogame might wear a decently supportive bra.

The debate demands onlookers accept one of two contradictory premises, so there is little room for nuance and the argument never runs out of fuel. Is Farage a truth-teller or a race-baiter? Was Thornberry a metropolitan snob, or was the England flag itself a type of dogwhistle? Are the Hugo awards in thrall to a politically correct cabal, or simply making an effort to remedy an ingrained injustice? Whether it’s videogames, science fiction or Westminster politics, the underlying struggle for victim status is the same. And once you notice, it’s downright eerie to hear the same arguments – about “out-of-touch elites” who don’t connect with the tastes of “real people” – coming from the leader of Ukip and a guy who wrote a book called Summa Elvetica: A Casuistry of the Elvish Controversy.

There is no single answer and, at least in the case of the Hugo awards, it is not in the extremists’ interests to find one. Vox Day has built a small internet army on his manufactured grievance, and he won’t let it go lightly. If SFF fans vote to give “no award” in the categories where Rabid Puppies candidates dominate, he has threatened to ensure that the awards are never given again. It is a supremely self-interested move. Politicising the Hugos to such a degree certainly doesn’t help the nominees themselves, because authors on his slate risk being informally blacklisted by the rest of the community. Who wants to read a fantasy story endorsed by a bigot?

This is mildly amusing, considering how it is usually asserted that I am stupid. Now I am suddenly an overly erudite elitist? Okay, actually, that’s considerably closer to the truth, but then, as an avowed anti-equalitarian, I don’t pretend to be anything but an elitist.

The important difference: unlike most elitists, I have no desire to dictate or control the behavior of the non-elite. I simply refuse to let either the elite or the non-elite claim the right to dictate or control my behavior or my beliefs.

The last question is the most interesting. We might, of course, turn it around, as it rather usefully clarifies what James May keeps pointing out to everyone. Who wants to read a fantasy story endorsed by a Communist? Who wants to read a story endorsed by a feminist? Who wants to read a fantasy story endorsed by a Negro? Who wants to read a fantasy story endorsed by a woman?

Once the idea of judging a work on its own merits, rather than on the basis of who creates or endorses it, is rejected, then there is no reason to not judge works on the very racist, sexist, and ideological grounds that the SJWs claim to bitterly oppose. They are openly demolishing the very foundations upon which their incoherent ideology rests.

The Hugo situation doesn’t “prove progressives right”. Quite to the contrary, it has clearly shown their ideology to be not only hopelessly hypocritical, but intrinsically self-contradictory too. And if the article didn’t prove it, the comments certainly do.

“They stand for intolerance, prejudice, fear & loathing and must be rejected with scorn, derision and at times, force. Their opinion and views are not equal nor are they valid so therefore they do not deserve to be given any air time or publicity.”

Very well. We can certainly treat them likewise.

Anti-GamerGate attacks the Honey Badgers

The SJWs came for the Honey Badger Brigade yesterday:

Early this morning, Fan Expo Canada banned Honey Badger Brigade (HBB) from the Calgary Comics and Entertainment Expo (CalEx). Security staff approached the HBB booth, ordered us to leave, and refused to state the reason why unless Alison Tieman agreed to speak to them away from the other members of the group, without recording. They informed Alison that they had received complaints on social media, including 25 allegations of harassment. No evidence was presented, no request was made for information from HBB, and no specific incident was cited until further questions were asked of security.

Upon further questioning, security mentioned the Women in Comics panel discussion from the previous day, where Alison was given permission to speak. Alison spoke briefly in relation to a topic brought up by the panelists. Accusers, however, claimed that Alison derailed the conversation. Alison and myself were in attendance, and you can listen to Alison’s statement in the panel here on YouTube. You can hear Alison, myself and indeed the entire panel in the full discussion record.

As you will hear, there was no harrassment. Expo staff and mob rule, in their crusade for ending harassment against women, harassed the Honey Badgers despite having no evidence of any policy violation.

This is what we are up against. This is why I will never back down, why I will never ever apologize for thinking, speaking, and writing freely. This is why I am the Leader of #GamerGate and why you should be too.

The real crime of the Honey Badger Brigade, for which they were successfully attacked, was not “reportedly disrupting panels”, but rather “associating with GamerGate”.

Think about it. A group of women were just harassed and driven out of a convention for being guilty by association. And the SJWs claim that we are the intolerant ones, we are the uncivil ones, we are the ones harassing women, we are the ones trying to drive others from the public discourse. Meanwhile, the moderates claim that the problem is our tone, that we’re simply not being nice enough, that if only we didn’t express our “problematic” views but kept them quietly to ourselves, everything would be all right.

Horseshit. Absolute and unadulterated horseshit.

Notice that they wanted to isolate Alison, and speak to her away from the others and without recording. Sound familiar? Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that I am an arrogant, cruel, and ruthless badthinker who eminently deserves every “shitbag” “asshat” “jackass” “dipshit” insult and every denigrating and disqualifying “mentally unbalanced” “racist” “misogynist” “sexist” “anti-Semitic” “homophobic” “Nazi” “white supremacist” description that has been hurled my way by SJWs from New York City to New Zealand for the last 10 years. Even if all of those accusations were perfectly true, how would that explain the coordinated assault on the Honey Badger Brigade?

Did that take place in response to me? If I was just a little nicer, if my rhetoric dripped with pure honey rather than pure contempt, if I lovingly laved Teresa Nielsen-Hayden’s warty folds with my tongue and dutifully nominated John Scalzi and Charles Stross and Patrick Nielsen-Hayden for awards so those three giants of modern science fiction could add to their collective total of 39 Hugo nominations (only 8 more than Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke combined), would that have somehow prevented the Honey Badgers from being attacked by SJWs and expelled from Calgary Expo?

Several tweets from this morning suggested one of the exhibitors was
proudly demonstrating banners and shirts for GamerGate. It was quickly
revealed this was The Honey Badger Brigade…. Calgary Expo has been actively responding to comments and criticisms
about its decision on Twitter, expressing it had no desire to allow a
GamerGate-themed booth onto the show floor.

This is a cultural war, everyone. And if you’re not fighting it, you’re losing it.


The reason the SJWs went after the Honey Badger Brigade instead of #GamerGate is the same reason they went after Sad Puppies instead of Rabid Puppies. The more publicly acceptable the face of their opposition, the more they are determined to silence and separate it from their most implacable opponents.

It didn’t work with Larry and Brad. It won’t work with the Honey Badgers either. #GamerGate will not abandon them. What do you say, Rabid Puppies? What do you say, Dread Ilk?

Support the Honey Badgers and join the #GamerGate email campaign against the sponsors of Calgary Expo. Send one email, just one polite little email, to start. I have. That’s all it takes… because we are legion.

The refutation of Freud

In case you weren’t convinced that psychology is a pseudoscience, this should do the trick:

Let me be perfectly clear: Larry Correia and Brad Torgersen (who really seems to more or less have tagged along on Larry’s coattails) are not in the same league as Theodore Beale. Larry and Brad are frightened, well fed little puppies sitting on top of a large pile of meaty bones and snarling because there are one or two they can’t have, and feeling justified in their fear because some skinny kittens have managed to slip away with a few of the bones and gnaw on them in peace.

Theodore Beale, on the other hand, is Cerberus sitting on top of the bone pile breathing fire and wreaking mayhem for the joy and the attention of upsetting everyone, puppies and kitties alike. I’ve been searching for ten years now and have not found a single redeeming characteristic in Beale. He’s a vile person with vile opinions, and he’s an absolutely atrocious writer. If it weren’t for the fact that he was raised with money and privilege, he would almost certainly be serving twenty to life somewhere, because he either acted on or got caught acting on his beliefs. He is someone outside the scope of psychotherapy. If you were to ask him, he would tell you there is nothing wrong with him, he’s just fine the way he is – and that is why he is outside the scope of therapy.

He doesn’t need to be saved, society needs to be protected from him – and then maybe someone (not me) can work on saving him. And I speak as someone who works with violent people, entitled people, people who abuse, on a regular basis. If he were free to act on his impulses with impunity, people would suffer. I can only be grateful he’s not particularly impulsive.

Right now, it serves Theodore Beale very well to borrow the Sad Puppy meme and create his own offshoot, the Rabid Puppies. He is getting attention and hate, and he thrives on that. It’s what he lives for. For now, while they serve his purposes, he is keeping the Sad Puppies protected from his fire – until they no longer serve his purposes.

And I suspect Correia and Torgersen know it. They are very careful to walk the line between distancing themselves from him and not distancing themselves too much. They have only recently acknowledged that it wasn’t the Sad Puppy slate that swept the Hugo nominations this year, it was the Rabid Puppy slate. They haven’t admitted (at least publicly) that it was Beale’s invitation of Gamergaters – people who are perfectly willing to commit illegal acts including doxxing and making rape and murder threats (and in at least one case, an attempt) – to exclude specifically women, and specifically minority women, from their own particular fandom (video games).

And yet (Correia and Torgersen claim) it is not about sexism. It is not about racism. It is about fighting against ideological purity. To borrow a meme, it is about ethics in gamer journalism.

Here’s the final, worst piece of all of this. By now, the Sad Puppies have realized what they have unleashed. They realize (at least privately) that they overreacted, that they were the bad actors against an opponent that only existed in their heads – but they can never publicly admit it, not without having the hell hound they unleashed turn on them. If they distance themselves from Beale too much, they risk being slapped by the same forces that they opened the door to theHugosfor. They might be subject to doxxing and threats and actions. They will have Beale’s venom spewed over them.

Yeah, somehow I doubt Larry and Brad are shaking in their boots that I am going to attack them. I know the SJWs would love it if I would do so. But that’s not going to happen. I didn’t fall for the divide-and-conquer tactics when they tried to get me to disavow Roosh and Roissy, and I’m not about to fall for it now.

You don’t need to be best friends to be allies. You only need to be shooting in the same direction. The weakness of the moderates, and the reason they are so reliably ineffective, is that they would much rather shoot at their allies than at their enemies.

The amusing thing is the way the “psychotherapist” tries to turn a very real enemy into something that is supposedly existing only in our heads… even as that enemy has been shrieking in full-throated outrage against us for the last two week. And then, she turns around and blames everything on #GamerGate, when there are only two confirmed #GamerGaters in Rabid Puppies, myself and Daddy Warpig.

The lesson, as always, is this: SJWs always lie.

Let them shriek. It won’t be the last time. Cerberus has a LOT more bones to crack.

Messages from the SJWs

A number of writers have some messages for Straight White Male publishing:

1. “Diversity is not publishing the one story. It’s publishing multiple stories from people of diverse backgrounds.”
—Karissa Chen

2. “My main characters are not always black.”
—Sophfronia Scott

3. “Read less straight white men.”
—Natalie Eilbert

4. “We read. (And buy books.)”
—Lisa Lucas

5. “Get over it.”
—Susan Orlean

6. “Be honest.”
—Yahdon Israel

7. “Listen.”
—Lauren Hilger

8. “We owe you nothing.”
—Amanda Bullock

9. “Grow up.”
—Roxane Gay

10. “Look out the window.”
—Jane Ciabattari

11. “Sit down and let us abolish you.”
—Franny Choi

12. “Ain’t nobody got time for that!?!”
—Ru Freeman

13. “Chill.”
—Morgan Parker

14. “Asian American author with an Asian American editor.
—Matthew Salesses

15. “She’s coming for you.”
—Emily Bell and Amelia Gray

16. “Plz stop.”
—Rowan Hisayo Buchanan and T Kira Madden

17. “We are not tokens.
—Rowan Hisayo Buchanan and T Kira Madden

18. “You have not doomed us. You’ve doomed yourselves.”
—Saeed Jones

19. “Pay attention to the world. (—Susan Sontag)”
—Jynne Dilling Martin

20. “Hire women. Diversity makes you strong.”
—Annelies Zijderveld

21. “We don’t need you.”
—Jayson P. Smith

22. “Take a vacation (a long one).
—Chelsea Reimann and Meg Day

23. “Don’t assume that you are at the center.”
—Cheryl Strayed

Are you still buying the “oh, we are just poor homeless writers who only want to join the discourse and find a place at the table” propaganda? They are fascists, they want control, and any publisher who was foolish enough to permit these entryists a place at the table will soon find that he’s been pushed to the side, if he hasn’t been already.

Diversity is self-destruction, because a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Meanwhile, publishing is actually 74 percent female and rising. As recently as 2010, the industry was 70 percent female.

It’s no secret that lots of women work in publishing. But just how
many more women work in publishing than men? In PW’s recent Salary
Survey (Aug. 2) one statistic stuck out: 85% of publishing employees
with less than three years of experience are women.

Total Responses: 1,584
70% Female 30% Male

Under 3 Years Experience: 164
85% Female 15% Male

3 to 6 Years Experience: 388
82% Female 18% Male

That was then. This is now: “Women accounted for 74% of the publishing workforce and men only 26%.”

The International Lord of Hate fisks GRRM

The results are pretty much as you’d imagine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This blog goes to 23

 In which George Martin is slapped back into reality:

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

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

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

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

Accept it. He is. He does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenneth Branagh is Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Apostle John may be black now, but I don’t think Hollywood can truly claim to be colorblind until Branagh plays Martin Luther King, Jr., Jet Li plays Nelson Mandela, and an Esquimaux plays Othello.

From Idris Elba’s gritty portrayal of London detective John Luther, to Dennis Haysbert’s calm, cool and collected President Palmer in “24″ (oh, to have a black president like THAT!), to Denzell Washington and Morgan Freeman in just about any role, black actors have enriched the big and small screens, adding richness, humor, depth and, well, color to our entertainment experience.

So why did I cringe a little when I first saw Gambian actor Babou Ceesay as the Apostle John and Chinese/Zimbabwean actress Chipo Chung as Mary Magdalene standing beside the mother of Jesus during Sunday’s NBC broadcast of the first episode of “A.D. The Bible Continues”? Did my inherent, inborn “racism” as a Southern white dude (go ahead, insert your favorite toothless, ignorant redneck joke here) finally subconsciously kick in, robbing me of the rich, diverse, multicultural experience the filmmakers were obviously trying to bring me with their forward-thinking casting?

Why must every historical movie these days, particularly those that deal with biblical topics, be subjected to a diversity “litmus test”? With apologies to Afrocentrists everywhere (OK, not really), while it’s possible there were black people in the vicinity of Judea during the time of Christ, there is no way, absolutely no way, John the Apostle was black. No serious historian believes this.

Of course, by then, the SJWs will be demanding that Whoopi Goldberg play Romeo. Because transist.