?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Where's the Beef?

Now we get to the crux of the matter.

So... what is behind Puppygate? What is it the Sad Puppies want? They have been doing this for three years now, three separate campaigns, with a fourth threatened... and presumably a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh if this goes on. That's a lot of effort, a lot of hours, a lot of commitment. To what end? What's their grievance?

I've read Brad Torgensen's statements on this point, and I've read Correia's MONSTER HUNTER NATION, and I've read hundreds of comments from their supporters. As with any large group, there is a wide range of opinion. Some of the Puppies are relatively moderate and reasonable. Others, I fear, are beyond the pale, raging and ranting about SJWs and cliques and secret conspiracies.

Digesting all of this, and trying to filter out the rabid extremists who seem mostly just to want to hurt liberals and feminists and gays, the essence of the Puppy complaint seems to be that the Hugo Awards have been taken over by the left, by their "Social Justice Warriors," and these "CHORFs" (another offensive made-up term, like SJWs) have rigged the awards somehow so that only members of their own leftish "clique" or those writer who are willing to "kiss their ass" win, while other books and stories are ignored or excluded, and other writers are "blacklisted."

Breaking down the complaints further, this purported exclusion seems to take several different forms, which vary according to which Puppy is speaking:
(1) some say the exclusion is political in nature, that conservative and libertarian writers are being unfairly shut out,
(2) others charge religious discrimination, insisting the Christian writers and "writers of Faith" are the ones being excluded,
(3) there's a racial component in some comments (not from the Puppy leaders, but from their followers), wherein we are told that "straight white men" are the victims here,
(4) and finally, there's the literary argument, wherein we are told that the ballots are full of bad boring crappy stories that no one really likes, placed there in some nefarious manner by the secret SJW cliques, whereas good old-fashioned SF and fantasy, the stuff the readers really love, is shut out and ignored.

Do I have the essence of it, Puppies and Puppylovers? I am leaving out any of the charges? Is this the source of all the anger, of this "revolt," of this determination to "take back SF?"

Because if it is... well, someone has sold you a bill of goods.

Let's look at the facts, shall we? I accept and acknowledge that some of the Puppies may feel excluded, disrespected, shunned... but feelings and facts are two different things.

Number (3) is the easiest to disprove. Straight white men are being excluded. Really? Really? C'mon, guys. Go look at the last five, ten years of Hugo ballots. Count how many men were nominated. Count how many women. Now count the black writers and the Asian writers and the foreign-language writers. Yes, yes, things are changing. We have a lot more women and minorities being nominated than we did in 1957, say, or even 1987... but the ballots are still way more white and way more male than not. Look, I am hardly going to be in favor of excluding straight white men, being one myself (and no, I am not a fan of Tempest Bradford's challenge). I am in favor of diversity, of inclusion, of bringing writers from many different backgrounds and cultures into the field. I don't want straight white writers excluded from the ballot... I just don't think they need to have ALL of it. I mean, we're SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY FANS, we love to read about aliens and vampires and elves, are we really going to freak out about Asians and Native Americans?

Let's put that one aside, and look at the other three allegations. Are the Hugos biased against conservative writers, religious writers, or writers of the "good old stuff," military SF, planetary adventures, space opera, sword & sorcery, hard science, and the like?

The Puppies say yes. I say no. The facts agree with me.

This chart is couple of years old, and therefore outdated a bit, but it still provides a very valuable overview of the history of the awards, who has won them, who has been nominated. So here are the records, albeit a few years out of date:

http://www.sfadb.com/Hugo_Awards_Tallies

(Before we get into the listings, let me repeat once again my contention that IT IS AN HONOR TO BE NOMINATED. Sure, it's a bigger honor to win. But being on the shortlist is nothing to sneeze at, and I say that as the co-founder of the Hugo Losers Club).

What do we see on that list? Well, for a start, it is much easier to rack up lots and lots of nominations in the categories where one votes for a person rather than a work (Best Artist, Best Editor, Best Fan Writer). British humorist Dave Langford leads everyone with 55 nominations and 29 wins. Mike Glyer of FILE 770 is close behind with 52 nominations but only 9 wins. Then comes the late Charles N. Brown, editor and publisher of LOCUS, and Tor/ Signet/ Timescape/ Berkley editor David G. Hartwell, and Mike Resnick, and then Stan Schmidt, editor of ANALOG.

Some of these perennial nominees are liberal politically, I suspect, but none of those could be said to push a political agenda, or wear their politics on their sleeves. No SJWs here. On the other hand, Stan Schmidt edited ANALOG for longer than John W. Campbell did, and during all those decades it was the most conservative magazine in the field, the hard science mag, the choice of engineers everywhere, where the flag of Campbellian SF flew high. Now it is true, Stan never won, not until the year he retired. But he was nominated thirty-five times. Is that your definition of exclusion? Resnick... a very prolific writer, and by this list, the guy with the most nominations ever for fiction, rather than fanac or editing. Resnick, as I am sure the Puppies know, was at the center of the SFWA BULLETIN flap and lost the column that he and Barry Malzberg had written for decades... which hardly makes him a poster boy for the left. David Hartwell... well, Dave works for Tor, which some of the more extreme Puppies may count against him, but he's also worked for many other publishers, and he's edited many many writers from both right and left. I seem to recall it was Hartwell who first discovered John Wright, this year's six-time Puppy favorite nominee.

So far I see moderates, conservatives, Campbellians, and the apolitical. I see no SJWs.

How about total number of WINS? Well, once again you've got Langford, the fannish humorist and wit, publisher of ANSIBLE, at 29, tied with Charlie Brown of LOCUS. Charlie was champion of a more ambitious, literary style of SF, but he loved the classic old stuff too. A Vance fan, a Heinlein fan. Gardner Dozois and Michael Whelan each had 15 when this list came out. Gargy's an editor, a very important and influential editor, and yes, he's a liberal... but once again, he also loves a good story. He's edited space opera anthologies (THE GOOD OLD STUFF and THE GOOD NEW STUFF) and with me, OLD MARS and OLD VENUS, retro-SF that PLANET STORIES would have loved. Whelan's an artist. A brilliant one. And next down... CONNIE WILLIS. It says here she's won 11 times, but I think she's won a few more since. Connie's a woman, yes, and she's liberal politically (though far from radical). She's also religious. She has been singing in her Church choir for decades, she attends church regularly. Of course, she's Episcopalian, so I am not sure that "counts" for some of the Puppies, who only seem to grant that a writer is religious if he or she shares their own religion.

Going further down the all-time list... there's Richard E. Geis (politically hard right, sexually and socially left) with 34 nominations, Robert Silverberg (conservative) with 28. Further down, past some fans and artists, there's liberal old me with 19 nominations (15 losses and 4 wins when this list was drawn up), tied with conservative Larry Niven.

One huge name not on the list: Robert A. Heinlein. Heinlein did not rack up a lot of noms, since most of his short work was done before the Hugos were created. But he won Best Novel (the Big One) FOUR TIMES, a record that stands to this day (Lois McMaster Bujold tied him, but no one has yet exceeded him). RAH is not easy to characterize politically... he started out as a New Deal Democrat, even ran for office on the EPIC ticket, later became Republican and conservative on many issues... but socially was extremely progressive in his youth, and retained many liberal and libertarian opinions on sexuality and religious matter right up to his death in 1988.

If you're looking for SJWs on this list, well... there's Harlan Ellison and Ursula K. Le Guin. Harlan was certainly a firebrand, and Ursula was the field's most eloquent and respected feminist for decades. They are also two of the greatest talents that SF has ever produced. Both SFWA Grandmasters, both firmly ensconsced in the Science Fiction Hall of Fame, beloved of generations of readers. It would be hard to argue that either was created by a "clique."

Oh, oh, okay, I can hear the Sad Puppies barking out their objections. "We never said the Hugo Awards were ALWAYS dominated by a leftist clique," they are barking. "We only said that the SJWs took them over recently, and ruined them. That's when all the good books and all the writers we like got excluded."

Okay, fine. Fair enough. Let's narrow our focus, then, and look only at the recent past, at the ballots that somehow triggered Puppygate. No rhetoric, just facts.

We know about this year's ballot, the Sasquan ballot. Puppies puppies everywhere, thanks to Sad Puppies 3 and the Rabid Puppies. Last year, the Loncon ballot... well, that was the year of Sad Puppies 2, and that campaign, if not quite the sweep, did put Vox Day and Larry Correia and several other Puppy faves on the shortlist, so we'll pass over that one too. To see how powerful the liberal SJW cliques truly were, we need to go back to a time before Correia and Day and their followers rose up to smite them.

Let's look at 2012. LoneStarCon 3, San Antonio, in that notoriously liberal state of Texas. 1343 nominating ballots were received. 1848 final ballots chose the winners.

The Big One, Best Novel, went to John Scalzi for REDSHIRTS. He won out over 2312 by Kim Stanly Robinson, THRONE OF THE CRESCENT MOON by Saladin Ahmed, BLACKOUT by Mira Grant, and CAPTAIN'S VORPATIL'S ALLIANCE by Lois McMaster Bujold. Three men, three women. Two white men, one Arab-American. Do the Puppies object to these nominees? Is this the clique slate? Hard to see why. One Tor book, one from DAW, one from Baen, two from Orbit; no publisher had a stranglehold here, certainly. 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. And the other nominees... only the Robinson could even remotely be considered "literary SF" of the sort the Puppies seems to hate. Saladin's book was sword & sorcery, a rollicking swashbuckler in the tradition of Robert E. Howard, Harold Lamb, and the Thousand and One Nights. Bujold, well, you could call her Miles Vorkosigan series space opera, or maybe military SF, but her novels are never less than entertaining, good reads all. The Mira Grant is a zombie novel. Zombies, guys.

Now, do I think these were the best five novels of 2012? Actually, no. As best I recall, I only nominated one of them... along with a couple of books that did not make the ballot. (You can find out which ones if you look back on my Not A Blog for that year's recs). But it's a pretty typical ballot, worse than some, better than others, with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of any kind of "social justice" agenda or conspiracy.

Let's look further down the LoneStarCon ballot. Novella: won by "The Emperor's Soul," by Brandon Sanderson, a pretty traditional story by an epic fantasist who also happens to be Mormon. (Where is that religious bigotry? Did the SJWs miss him?) One of the other nominees was by Aliette de Bodard, who many Puppies seem to count as one of the despised SJWs, but if the secret cabal was working for her, they fucked it up, because she lost. The other nominees were Nancy Kress, Jay Lake, and (again) Mira Grant. So far maybe we have some evidence of a Mira Grant clique, but none of a Social Justice clique.

Go to Novelette. Won by "The Girl-Thing Who Went Out for Sushi," by Pat Cadigan. A brilliant story from a long time fan who had never won a Hugo before, and hadn't even been nominated for decades. The most popular win of the evening; the crowd in the hall went wild cheering. Pat won over two stories by Seanan McGuire (also known as Mira Grant), one by Catherynne Valente, and one by Thomsas Olde Heuvelt. Was it this shortlist that provoked the Puppies? Four women and only one man there, is that the issue? A surfeit of McGuire/ Grant, maybe? Or were there some brilliant conservative novelettes that year that were overlooked? I honestly do not know.

Short Story only had three nominees. Ken Liu won over Aliette de Bodard and Kij Johnson. The SJWs are really letting down the side, that's twice they left de Bodard lose. (I hope I remembered to give her a Hugo Loser ribbon, she certainly earned it). No other short story had 5% of the nominating ballots, which is why the list was too small. When there are no slates, that happens: everyone has their own favorites, votes scatter.

Further down the ballot, Brandon Sanderson won again for Best Related Work, together with a bunch of friends. SAGA won Graphic Story, damn good comic, damn good choice. That radical leftist film THE AVENGERS won Long Form Drama, and something called GAME OF THRONES won Short Form. And for editor -- hey, Stanley Schmidt finally won for ANALOG... but oh, dear, Patrick Nielsen Hayden won for Long Form Editor. Now we see the power of the SJWs: they won, oh, wow, ONE whole Hugo at LoneStarCon.

That's just one year, though. Let's turn the clock back further, to Chicon 7 in Chicago, and the nominees for the best work of 2011.

The Big One went to Jo Walton and AMONG OTHERS. My own nominee, A DANCE WITH DRAGONS, finished last. In between you had EMBASSYTOWN by China Mieville (who is a vocal and passionate leftist, yes, but also a helluva powerful writer), LEVIATHAN WAKES by James S.A. Corey (a rousing space opera that any fan of the Good Old Stuff should love, soon to be a major TV series from the SyFy Channel), and DEADLINE by Mira Grant. Another zombie story, I seem to recall, same world as her other Best Novel nominees. Kij Johnson, Charlie Jane Anders, and Ken Liu won the Short Fiction Awards. Is there something about them or their stories that the Puppies object to? What could it be? Their literary style? Or...

Actually, looking at the other nominees, maybe THIS is the ballot that provoked the Proto-Puppies to sadness. Mira Grant has another nominee in novella. Mary Robinette Kowal was also up there, and MRK seems widely hated by the right for her work as SFWA Vice President ( a thankless job that I did onece). Ken Liu won for Short Story but lost for novella. Catherynne Valente had a losing novella. And Short Story, seven hells, look at that ballot: beside Liu there is E. Lily Yu, the despised John Scalzi, Nancy Fulda , and... oh, look, Mike Resnick, however did the liberal cabal ever let HIM sneak in?

Novelette is pretty interesting too. Charlie Jane Anders won out over Paul Cornell, the affable Brit, Geoff Ryman, the affable Canadian, Rachel Swirsky (author, a few years later, of that dinosaur story that has all the Puppy Panties in a twist), and... "Ray of Light," by Brad R. Torgersen, from ANALOG.

Condolences, Brad. You are a Hugo Loser. But hey, congratulations. You are a Hugo Loser. It's an exclusive club. We get together annually, clank our beers together, and chant, "It's an honor just to be nominated" in unison. Were you at the con? Did I give you a ribbon? If not, I'll be sure you get one, should we ever met. Wear it proudly. The rest of us do. If that list I linked to is right, I've lost fifteen. When you lose, the fannish tradition is to congratulate the winner and shake their hand, then go to our Hugo Loser Party to get drunk and bitter. When I lose, my friends all tell me I've been robbed. Makes me feel better. Even when I know it isn't true.

Looking further down the Chicon ballot, we come to the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. Not a Hugo. E. Lily Yu was the winner. She finished ahead of Karen Lord, Stina Leicht, Mur Lafferty, and... ah... Brad R. Torgersen again. Sorry, Brad. Two losses in one night, that's hard to take. But it's an honor too. Very few writers have ever been nominated for a Campbell and a Hugo in the same year. Actually, you may be the first. Being a Campbell Award loser does not officially qualify one for the Hugo Losers Club, but we usually let them in anyway. FWIW, I lost the very first Campbell Award, in 1973 at Torcon II. I was a nominee, but never really a contender, to tell the truth. Jerry Pournelle won that first Campbell, defeating George Alec Effinger so narrowly that the con gave him a special runner-up plaque, the first and last time that was ever done. I was way back behind both, so no plaques for me. But I did lose two Hugos in a single night once, in 1976 in Kansas City, Big Mac. Lost one to Larry Niven, and one to Roger Zelazny. The next night, Gardner Dozois and I founded the Hugo Losers Club, and held the first Hugo Losers Party in my room.

Onward and backward, though. Let's go back to Renovation. Reno, Nevada, 2011. Best work of 2010. Connie Willis wins the Big One for BLACKOUT/ ALL CLEAR. The other nominees were Mira Grant (for FEED, the first of her zombie cycle, I believe), Lois McMaster Bujold, N.K. Jemison with THE HUNDRED THOUSAND KINGDOMS, and THE DERVISH HOUSE by the amazing Ian McDonald.

I know what Vox Day thinks of Jemison, since I read his poisonous screed. (He is a Rabid Puppy, I know, not a Sad one, and I would hope most SPs would disavow his bile, regardless of their literary preferences or political affiliations). Vox attacked the GOH speech she gave at an Australian convention... but since the Sad Puppies here have stated often that they only care about the work, not the race or the views of the writer, surely there could not have been any objections to THE HUNDRED THOUSAND KINGDOMS... or the Bujold, or the McDonald.

The novella award went to Ted Chiang... a writer of literary SF, we may agree, but one of the most powerful to enter our field in many years. There's a reason Chiang wins every time he is nominated for a award. He's bloody good. Novelette, though... that went to Alan Steele for "The Emperor of Mars," a classic retro-SF story that he actually wrote for OLD MARS, the anthology Gardner and I were putting together. When we were unable to place the project, however, Alan sold the story to ASIMOV'S, and it brought him home a rocket. Classic old style SF in the tradition of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

I will skip over the rest of Reno... except for the John W. Campbell Award. The fans chose Lev Grossman as the Best New Writer, over Lauren Beukes, Saladin Ahmed, Dan Wells... and Larry Correia. This, it seems to me, was BEFORE he started his first Puppies campaign. Dan Wells was also a Sad Puppy at one time... though this year he asked not to be part of the slate.

I have read Correia's blog, and I know he says that he was treated very badly at the Reno worldcon, attacked for his views, denounced as a racist and homophobe. I was at Reno myself, but I don't recall meeting him, so I don't know the details of any of that. It shocks me to hear it, because the fandom I know has always been warm and welcoming to people of all political views. We are there to party and flirt and celebrate SF, after all. I regret any personal attacks or abuse that Correia may have suffered.

I will say, though, that there is no dishonor in losing to a writer as gifted as Lev Grossman, and many many terrific writers have lost the Campbell Award over the decades, starting with me. And it is an INCREDIBLE honor just to be nominated. Think about it. We have hundreds of new writers entering our field every year, all of them dreaming of careers, all of them fighting for recognition, trying to build their brand... and a few, maybe, lusting for rockets. Out of all those people, the fans nominated FIVE (sometimes six) for the Campbell.

There were no Sad Puppies when Larry Correia was nominated for the Campbell, when Brad Torgersen was nominated for the Campbell, when Torgersen was nominated for his first Hugo. (Subsequent noms, yes, may have resulted from Puppy campaigns). That was the traditional Hugo electorate putting you on the ballot... you, and a lot of other conservative writers, religious writers, white male writers, and purveyors of space opera, military SF, and Good Old Stuff.

There was never any need for Sad Puppies to "take back" the Hugos. The feminists, minorities, literary cliques, and Social Justice Warriors never took them in the first place. That's a myth, as the actual facts I have cited here prove conclusively.

Comments

chickenoverlord
Apr. 9th, 2015 11:55 pm (UTC)
No George, you don't get it
"Do I have the essence of it, Puppies and Puppylovers? I am leaving out any of the charges? Is this the source of all the anger, of this 'revolt,' of this determination to 'take back SF?'"

No, you really don't. We're tired of hateful, double-standard holding bigots attempting to sabotage the careers and reputations of people who don't toe their lines.

And something you may not realize: most "Social Justice Warriors" are themselves white. They attempt to speak on behalf of minorities, but have no qualms calling any minorities who step out of line "house niggers" or accusing them of suffering from "internalized racism" or "internalized misoginy." They claim to be fighting for minorities, but only the minorities who agree with them. Much like the "feminists" in the 1800's who took the right to vote away from my great-great grandmother because she was using it to vote for something they didn't like (polygamy). Even though the Mormons, those supposedly woman-subjugating polygamists that didn't believe in women's rights, were the second in the nation to give women the vote, the Social Justice Warriors of the 19th century felt they knew better and took that right away from them for their own good. The same spirit lives on in people today who tell my best friend's sister she has "internalized misoginy" for deciding to keep the baby from when she was date-raped. These are the people we call "Social Justice Warriors"
.
So what we're fighting against, what our demands our, is to see an end to the perpetually outraged being able to destroy a person's career, reputation, and happiness with the mere ACCUSATION of sexism/racism/whateverism. The ability to make someone a pariah with no proof they ever did the social "crime" they've been accused of. After these people were able to turn the greatest achievement in space exploration in decades into a slander campaign over a scientist's shirt, if you still don't believe this particular set of people, these "Social Justice Warriors," don't have considerable power relative to their actual numbers and are causing serious harm to free speech and an open and honest society, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I apologize if I have come across as angry. This is something I and countless others are very pasionate about. But regardless of our differences of opinion here, I still highly respect both you as a person as well as your work. Sad Puppies are asking that the peddlers of outrage culture try and offer us the same courtesy.

Edited at 2015-04-09 11:56 pm (UTC)
grrm
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:08 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
You make sweeping angry statements, drag in the odious Social Justice Warriors term, talk about feminists in the 1800s... but where are your FACTS?

Whose career has been destroyed by the SJWs? Who are these pariahs? How does any of this relate to the Hugo Awards?

Brad Torgersen is doing fine. Larry Correia is doing great. Mike Resnick has a new magazine and a bunch of new book contracts. Jim Butcher is a perennnial bestseller who makes millions with every new book. Where are all the bitter, broken men who the SJWs in their wroth have destroyed? Name one.
chickenoverlord
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:25 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
I can't name many because you never hear about them in the first place, and here's a thought experiment to explain why:

Orson Scott Card is still financially successful, despite his well-known views on gay marriage and homosexuality in general, but only because he is already extremely famous and well-known. In spite of this, peddlers of outrage have still been able to successfully get publishers to dump him or to pull him off of projects on numerous occasions. If a heavy-hitter like OSC can get hurt like that, what chance does an up-and-coming author have? If the CEO of Mozilla and inventor of Javascript can get ousted from his position as CEO due to outrage over a $1,000 donation to an "unpopular" political position (held by over half of voting Californians at the time, and overwhelmingly held by the black and Latino minorities whose interests the people who fought to oust Eich claim to represent). The chilling effect created by all of this means up-and-coming authors who have such "unpopular" political views stay quiet. They don't write works that might offend these peddlers of despair and outrage. They don't get their careers ruined very often because they're smart enough to keep their mouths shut. If they aren't, their careers are shut down before the destruction of said careers would ever be newsworthy. People like Correia are the exceptions that prove the rule, and even then he never would have been able to have the success he did if it weren't for publishers like Baen, who don't care about politics. The same certainly cannot be said about Tor.
thewrittenpath
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:08 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Is this a bad time to point out that Tor is Orson Scott Card's publisher?
Re: No George, you don't get it - matociquala - Apr. 10th, 2015 03:37 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No George, you don't get it - pardoz - Apr. 10th, 2015 03:44 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No George, you don't get it - akiko - Apr. 10th, 2015 12:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No George, you don't get it - Tim Pratt - Apr. 10th, 2015 07:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
gonzo21
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:31 am (UTC)
I'm afraid your thought experiment has an equal and more likely counter:

You can't provide any evidence of this grand conspiracy because there isn't any evidence of this grand conspiracy...


You guys are making extraordinary claims. You've gotta provide some evidence to back it up I'm afraid.
evidence - nwbrown - Apr. 10th, 2015 06:59 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: evidence - calcinations - Apr. 10th, 2015 07:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: evidence - nwbrown - Apr. 11th, 2015 04:32 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: evidence - rockstarwookie - Apr. 10th, 2015 08:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
ksavagexxx
Apr. 10th, 2015 02:11 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Concerning Card being pulled off of projects - it is possible that aside from any political or religious views he has was rude to people. A friend of mine in Boston is a successful writer and was (is?) a big fan of his work. He was pretty rude to her. She is offline so I don't feel right mentioning her name but I can without a doubt attest that she is a very polite person.
(Deleted comment)
tcpip
Apr. 11th, 2015 10:47 pm (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Just noting two comments.

> The ability to make someone a pariah with no proof they ever did the social "crime" they've been accused of.

and

> Orson Scott Card is still financially successful, despite his well-known views on gay marriage and homosexuality in general, but only because he is already extremely famous and well-known. In spite of this, peddlers of outrage have still been able to successfully get publishers to dump him or to pull him off of projects on numerous occasions.


Has someone (e.g., Orson Scott Card) had their reputation destroyed and has reached pariah status by the Social Justice Wizards for being accused of unproven homophobia or is it because of proven homophobia?
Filipe Ferreira
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:42 am (UTC)
"Whose career has been destroyed by the SJWs?" I can think of a few dRe: No George, you don't get it
"Whose career has been destroyed by the SJWs?"
I can think of a few dozens, ranging from academia into commerce. It has intensified particularly in the last few years

https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

A comprehensive list with links.
grrm
Apr. 10th, 2015 03:05 am (UTC)
Re: "Whose career has been destroyed by the SJWs?" I can think of a few dRe: No George, you don't ge
None of this has anything to do with science fiction, the Hugo Awards, or the Sad Puppies.

Is the point that sometimes people are fired for saying stupid, unpopular, or obnoxious things?

Okay, sure, granted.
ardversen
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:22 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Please don't put Butcher in the same category with Torgesen and Correia, he is not a backer of this mess, they just happened to grab his name for their cause.
ivaroni
Apr. 10th, 2015 02:58 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Why would you worry about putting someone's name in the same "category" as Torgesen and Correia? Is it because you are worried that there will be a backlash? There should not be, if awards are indeed about the quality of the work.

Colum Paget
Apr. 10th, 2015 05:50 pm (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
# Where are all the bitter, broken men who the SJWs in their wroth have destroyed? Name one.

Colum Paget. He's a left-leaning guy (who financially supports Refuge and AllOut.org) who came into SF some years ago, got attacked by a troll called requires_hate, and left with his worldview and politics changed. He's not attending cons any more, and he's not writting anymore. I happen to know this because I'm him.

Oh, and while we're at it: There's millions of people starving in this world: Name one.

Sir, how can you support the Mixon report, and then turn around and ask questions like this? You say "the fandom I know has always been warm and welcoming to people of all political views". I would suggest this shows you are a little out of touch. Perhaps your fame and position isolates you from some of the things that have been happening at the grassroots level?

I ask you this: when I was trying to make people see requires_hate for what she was, years ago, why wouldn't they listen? Why did I get lectures about privilege, get told off for calling her racist because "there's no such thing as racism towards white people", why couldn't people see her for what she was? Why did it take so long for anything to be done? What was the magic that so warped people that the could look at calls for people to be beheaded, or have their hands cut off, and applaud? And don't tell me people didn't know, she had a lot of people following her blog and twitter feeds, including some of the big new names in SF. If things are so hunky dory in fandom and the Sad Puppies are all delusional, how is it that requires_hate could be a thing? How is it that there are *still* people who will blog in support of her?

And what happened with Johnathon Ross? Oh, I was never that keen on the man, and he's made some embarrasing gaffes, but how come he caused huge outrage for a joke he'd not even made yet, while requires_hate was allowed to call for people's murder and disfigurement, and no-one had any problem with that?

Mr Corriea's post about his experiences in the genre resonates strongly with my own experiences. Never in my life have I felt as hated as I did in the SF community. If I, who am a supporter of many of the things the SF left claims to believe in, have been driven out of the genre, then how many untold others have gone too? Oh, I can't name any of them, just as requires_hate's victims couldn't name each other until the Mixon report bought us all together. The Sad Puppies may be wrong in thinking that the community has it in for them all, but something has made them think that way, and something continues to make them think that way, and that something is real. Something is rotten in the state of SF, and this is what has given us the Sad Puppies. Rather than counting hugo noms in an effort to 'disprove' them, we would do better to ask what that something is. The problem many people here have, is that they cannot see the water, because they have been swimming in it for so long.
grrm
Apr. 10th, 2015 07:29 pm (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Requires Hate is vile, and I have said so, and will be saying so again soon, more loudly. I am sorry for what she did to you. There is no excuse for it.

However, to be fair, I had never heard of you until I read Laura Mixon's report. I had seen RH's blog, once or twice, but once I saw what it was, I did not go back there. It was enough to know it was a cesspool without jumping into it on a regular basis.

I don't know of any "big names in SF" who supported Requires Hate. But maybe you and I define "big name" differently.

Honestly, I think the vast majority of fandom had no idea of her existance, or the extent of the damage she was doing. Now that they do, she is being roundly condemned.

Jonathan Ross is a whole different issue... but there you and I agree. I stand with Ross and Neil Gaiman on that one. It was ugly and unwarranted.
Re: No George, you don't get it - Colum Paget - Apr. 11th, 2015 02:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No George, you don't get it - redmorlock - Apr. 12th, 2015 02:29 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: No George, you don't get it - turield - Apr. 11th, 2015 09:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
leupagus
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:14 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
You don't come across as angry - merely uninterested in any perspectives that don't cater to you.
scarybaldguy
Apr. 10th, 2015 12:22 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
They attempt to speak on behalf of minorities, but have no qualms calling any minorities who step out of line "house niggers" or accusing them of suffering from "internalized racism" or "internalized misoginy."
[citation needed]


I'm pretty active on Tumblr; my son is out FTM and reblogs across all social spectra. Not once in tens of thousands of posts by him and others have I ever seen this kind of backstabbery. Your strawman is made of fail.
chickenoverlord
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:38 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Go on Twitter, use the hashtag #NotYourShield, and ask the thousands of women and minorities who use that tag about their experiences, which completely contradict your personal experiences but overwhelmingly support what I claimed.
alexandraerin
Apr. 10th, 2015 05:11 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
I'm pretty sure it's not the people who get written off as SJWs who think of people as shields.

You have to be thinking in that way to think that a slate that includes women and ~*minorities*~ (fun digression: check the actual world population statistics sometimes and then wonder why we still use this word for "non-white") can't possibly be influenced by racism or sexism. You have to be thinking of human beings as shields to write, as Brad Torgersen did, that it's impossible to live the life he's lived while being racist or sexist.

When we who are dismissed as ~*SJWs*~ call things that involve women sexist, we aren't "erasing" those women and we aren't trying to claim women as shields (I mean, huh? How?) You have to be thinking of identity demographics as monoliths in the first place for that to even make sense.

No one has to tell an SJW that they're not our shield. We know whose shields the people on that hashtag are, they've made that very clear. We're not interested in claiming them, or anyone else, as ours. We don't need people to serve as props like that.

So much of the conversation leading up to this Hugo "backlash" against "SJWs" comes from the fact that the people making the backlash have never bothered to understand what we're saying. When we analyze a piece of media from an angle you wouldn't bother with, it's assumed we're haters who just want to tear it down. We can't be impassioned fans who simply appreciate a thorough analysis, oh no. We can't be people who love a piece of media but wish it loved us back more, oh no.

If I say that ________ is sexist, somehow this is me attempting to speak for and over all women. But if one of your self-proclaimed shields pops up to say that I can't say it's sexist because she's a woman and she says it's not... hey, isn't she trying to speak for and over me?

I see so many people claiming "You don't like it that we're doing the same things you do! You're just mad that other people can use your tactics!" But you've never bothered to understand what "tactics" you're co-opting. You've never bothered to understand the goals or aims of the discourse you're attempting to refute.

No, you're not using our tactics. You're just mimicking what you think the bogeyman you've invented to make it acceptable to bash people who disagree with you *must* be doing.
thefirstalicat
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:01 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Any reader might begin to give your argument at least an unbiased hearing, if only you knew how to spell misogyny. Once can be a mistake, twice is sheer ignorance.
nelc
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:24 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
So which of the potential nominees pushed out of contention by the Sad & Rabid Puppies slate are SJWs? Can you name some names?
grrm
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:46 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Well, I don't think there are any "SJWs," so that question is moot.

I do think there were a lot of good books and stories that were not nominated this year. Until we get the final nominations list, with hard numbers, it is impossible to say which ones would have made the ballot without the Sad Puppies.

A lot of people are raving about a book called THE THREE-BODY PROBLEM. I haven't gotten to that one myself yet, but people I respect speak highly of it.

I have read, and loved, STATION ELEVEN. That was my favorite novel of the year. Did it come close? Hard to say, until we see the numbers.

Lots of other possibilities.
irilyth
Apr. 10th, 2015 01:53 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
I have friends who I've seen calling themselves SJWs recently. I don't know if it's just recently, or if they've been doing it for a while. I think what they mean by it is something along the lines of "if I see people engaging in [sexist, racist, homophobic, etc] bullshit, I won't just shuffle my feet awkwardly, I'll call them on it", which seems like a pretty reasonable and commendable thing to me.

(And like something that the RPs would describe as "chilling attacks on their freedom of speech", because people saying things like "wow, that joke was really kind of sexist" makes them feel uncomfortable and awkward. As well it should.)
Re: No George, you don't get it - monkofmimmir - Apr. 10th, 2015 09:31 am (UTC) - Expand
nelc
Apr. 10th, 2015 02:00 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
> Well, I don't think there are any "SJWs," so that question is moot.

That was my point, really. If any of the Sad Puppies have been hurt by anyone flying the banner of social activism, then they should really take it up with those specific individuals rather than spitefully muscling other completely random folk out of the Hugo nomination slots. If CiXin Liu wasn't the target of this action then what have the Puppies gained by forcing him out of contention?
Re: No George, you don't get it - ahaplessnewbie - Apr. 10th, 2015 02:27 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No George, you don't get it - grrm - Apr. 10th, 2015 03:07 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No George, you don't get it - Matthew Leo - Apr. 10th, 2015 04:44 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: No George, you don't get it - f_brooks - Apr. 11th, 2015 03:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
beeseeinya
Apr. 10th, 2015 08:26 am (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
I find this situation so difficult, because my political views are on the left, but I find myself sympathising with the Puppies' cause.

A couple of examples I will give to explain why I've left 'fandom' in general:

1. I used to be a member of the Science Fiction Book Club in the UK. I had to leave because the guy in charge had certain views - blacklisted Orson Scott Card (declaring him persona non grata) and (and this is tricky, I'll admit) did the same with Marion Zimmer Bradley last year when the news broke. He created an event for the boycott of the Enders Game movie - then signed up ALL members against their will. There were many objections against this, the reasons why should be obvious.

2. I went to Loncon last year. It was my first ever con and I was really excited. I've been a sci-fi and fantasy fan since I was a little kid, but it's mainly been a lonely activity since none of my friends were ever really into it, but that's fine. Reading is a solo event, after all. I was nervous about going on my own but hey, it was going to be a-ma-zing! I actually did not have a great time. It's complicated. I tried to participate in activities and met exclusion and cliquey behaviour (there's nothing particularly 'weird' about me - white, female, shy and a bit porky). I kept overhearing things I didn't like - people in groups making nasty comments about people in other groups, or putting down people who were queueing up for a particular author, people in costume making negative comments about people who were not in costume, vice-versa... oh I can think of loads of these instances. I just recall coming away each day feeling really stressed-out and sad about the whole thing. THIS was fandom? THESE were the people I was expecting to identify with, after all this time spent alone in my geekiness, I thought I was finally coming home to the mothership and wow, it was a real disappointment. These people were (not all of them) highly intolerant. So I didn't have a neck full of previous con lanyards - that doesn't make me a terrible person, guys.

Another thing I noticed at Loncon... I went to a lot of the talks, they were amazing. But I ended up pretty tired of feminist debate by the end of it. It was an overwhelming feature of nearly every talk I went to, someone would ask about something along those lines and the next half hour would be about feminism. I'm female, I'm leftie, so cool, I get it. But I kind of want to talk about nerdy fantasy stuff sometimes and not have to worry and fret about politics? It's another reason I left the sci-fi book club - got absolutely sick of reading books with a feminist slant. It would not have been so bad if they were GOOD feminist books!

I am really sorry that I had this experience, because I want to automatically be outraged at this vote-rigging. It's stupid. It should not happen. But to say they don't have, possibly, somewhat, slightly, valid reasons for doing this? I have a small niggle inside that tells me that maybe they do. They still shouldn't have done it, though. I'd like to see a removal of all stupid politics from fandom, COMPLETELY. Let's talk about the work, the art, the experience of being a fan and of reading. Why does everything have to turn into an internet flame-war, these days? I WILL read The Mists of Avalon, and I WILL NOT be made to feel ashamed of myself.
foreverman203
Apr. 10th, 2015 05:55 pm (UTC)
Re: No George, you don't get it
Even if everything you say is true, and I'm not agreeing to that, but lets say it is, why would this be a fight to take to the Hugo awards? Are any of those people who attacked your sister (and if what you say is true then those people are wrong) going to win a Hugo this year? Who has had their career destroyed? As far as "SJW's" calling out minorities who "step out of line" as a person of color I think making such a claim with out sighting specific facts and events involved in the Hugo voting is out of line. No Hugo voter has ever called me any of the vile things you have listed above. According to you minorities are used by "SJW" to further their agenda, but you also don't hesitate to use minorities to further your agenda. How does this put you on some moral high ground? At best your argument seems to be that in this case two wrongs will make a right at worst it's give us what we want or we will burn it all down.

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

July 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner