Support For Irene Gallo Continues to Grow
Support for Irene Gallo, the embattled Creative Director of Tor Books, has grown with astonishing speed over the last 24 hours. Writers, editors, bloggers, and fans are speaking out in numbers across the genre.
In her Daily Dot article “Why sci-fi authors are angry with Tor Books,” Gavia Baker-Whitelaw writes:
In the world of sci-fi/fantasy publishing, all anyone can talk about today is this Tor.com blog post from Tor Books founder Tom Doherty….
After Doherty denounced Gallo’s comment, many sci-fi fans and authors began accusing him of hypocrisy. If Gallo’s post was deemed objectionable enough to warrant a public disavowal, what about the controversial opinions published by other Tor authors and employees?
While Gallo’s opinions were offensive to some Sad Puppies supporters, it’s unclear why the single-paragraph Facebook comment resulted in such a public response almost a month after it was posted. Other Tor-affiliated writers have posted similar things on social media over the past few months, but none of the comments were addressed on the front page of Tor.com.
In an article titled “Tor’s Dumb Letter,” Harry Connolly highlights the differences in the way Irene Gallo and Tor contracts manager Sean Fodera were treated for embarrassing the company.
Last year, Tor contracts manager Sean Fodera publicly attacked one of Tor’s authors, Mary Robinette Kowal, in a typically gross and sexist way. He later apologized, in a half-assed way, and she graciously accepted.
In May of this year, on her personal Facebook page, Irene Gallo (Creative Director at Tor Books) described a group of extreme right wings fans who call themselves “Sad Puppies” as extreme right wing fans. She also described a group of fan who follow a neo-Nazi (he denies the label even though he fits it) who call themselves “Rabid Puppies” as neo-Nazis. That neo-Nazi screencapped her remark and filed it away so he could release it as the Nebula Awards were given out, to distract people from the award winning books.
Did Tor CEO Tom Doherty release a letter apologizing publicly for Frenkel’s or Fodera’s behavior, while insisting that they should have been smarter about separating the personal from the professional? Of course not. For one thing, Frenkel’s shitty behavior happened while he was representing Tor Books at public events. For another, they were dudes and their victims were women.
However, it took Doherty less than 24 hours to issue a letter of apology for Gallo’s comment on her personal Facebook, and assuring the internet that he’s going to talk to her about being clear on the when she’s speaking for herself and for the company.
In a post titled “Two faced Tor,” Martin Wisse writes:
Vox Day and his fellow fascists ginned up controversy over a month old Facebook comment by Irene Gallo, a Tor Books employee, in which she called them rightwingers and neonazis. That’s a move straight out of the Breitbart playbook, where being accused of racism is always a much greater offence than actually being racist and you lie and manipulate your enemies into doing your dirty work for you.
It was clear to anybody who paid attention that the outrage over this comment was wholly artificial, purely done to score political points and energise the Puppies, who had started flagging in enthusiasm after months of not much happening. It was also clear that Vox Day and co were hoping to get Tor to do what Andrew Breitbart made his career with: get them to overreact to this controversy and use that as a way to exact consessions.
Tobias Buckell writes:
I stand by Irene Gallo as well.
The first thing I thought was, “where was the public post for Jim Frenkel serially harassing women all throughout many cons for how long with public apology or note regarding how editors should behave?”
Jessica Price writes at Bedside Notepad, in a post titled “I Stand With Irene Gallo,”
And Tom Doherty, founder of Tor, felt the need to post a piece on Tor’s site. In it, he talks about how the Puppies aren’t really that bad, and how Irene Gallo’s views don’t represent Tor’s, and how she’s been reprimanded for her post.
Just to be clear:
1. A woman speaks up against a racist and misogynist hate movement.
2. Her male boss shuts her up.
3. Her male boss then goes public, reassuring everyone he’s shut her up and that he has no issues with the hate movement.
4. He also makes sure to call her out by name.
And in a comment on Tom Doherty’s post at Tor.com, Mary Robinette Kowal writes:
As one of your authors, I want to say openly that I find this apology upsetting. In a large part because I was directly harassed by a Tor employee and received no apology from the company. From the employee? Yes. But from Tor? No.
The fact that you are now defending the Sad Puppies campaign, even implicitly, and apologizing to them for being offended is really distressing. It implies things about the priorities of Tor that I find uncomfortable and would very much like to be wrong about. At the moment though, I feel as though the safety of women authors, and authors of color is less important to the company than the feelings of those who attack them.
While I understand that the Sad Puppies list did, indeed, include women and writers of colour, the works that made the ballot are largely from the Rabid Puppies list. One category is made up largely of a single author’s work, which seems like the very opposite of diversity. While I recognize that the two groups are separate, they are so interconnected that it is hard to view them individually, particularly when the Sad Puppies claim the Rabid Puppies slate as their own victory.
So when you feel the need to apologize to people who have said that they want to see the Hugos destroyed, and emphasize that Irene’s views are not your own, I can’t help but wonder what your views are. All of which leaves me confused and distressed.
Facebook has been just as active with messages of support for Gallo. On her Facebook page, Laura Anne Gilman writes:
If you are not a corporate officer, or an acknowledged Corporate Spokesperson, you should not be presumed to speak for the company. If an employee says something that could hurt the company (negatively influencing a merger, causing stock prices to fall, etc) then they should be dealt with internally (NOT on the front page of your website). Merely expressing personal opinions on a matter affecting the entire industry? Is still free speech, for good or ill, unless said employee has signed an NDA/gag order, which to the best of my knowledge is not part of Tor’s employment package.
And if someone complains about someone else’s free speech? That’s also free speech. That’s how it works, however annoying it may become.
In my observation, Tom Doherty’s reacting the way he did – while ignoring other comments on the topic, interestingly enough said by MEN – has caused more potential harm to Tor Books than anything any employee could have done.
And Juliet E McKenna writes:
Tor.com have utterly failed in their handling of a highly suspect complaint about something Irene Gallo said in her personal webspace.
David Gerrold writes:
This is the year of the overreaction as well.
Apparently, there is no mistake so insignifcant that it does not deserve a call to action by the outrage committee. Torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers. Even the smallest of sins must be punished by an internet pile-on, public shaming, and boycotts of everyone in the same neighborhood…
The only winner in this (so far) is a certain lunatic attention-whore who needs to demonstrate how important he is by the size of the uproar he can create. And the rest of us have bought into it.
There was a Star Trek episode, “The Day Of The Dove” — in which the crew of the Enterprise and several Klingon warriors were at each other’s throats until they realized that there was an energy creature aboard, feeding on their hatred. Eventually both sides laughed at it — “We don’t need your help hating each other.”
We can continue to rip apart our community and eventually both sides will claim some kind of exhausted victory over whatever shambles remain. The grudges and feuds will last at least a generation because being right has become more important than being friends or colleagues.
Twitter also exploded with messages of support for Ms Galloe today. Hugo-winning author Rachel Swirsky said:
Irene Gallo is awesome. She just is. So, yay Irene Gallo.
And Hugo-winner Saladin Ahmed writes:
I’ll just say: Tor.com in particular wouldn’t be half of what it is without Irene Gallo, and Tor is damn lucky to have her.
Irene Gallo is awesome. She just is. So, yay Irene Gallo.
N. K. Jemisin says:
Shame on you, Tom Doherty. HR policies can be clarified in a way that doesn’t serve the interests of bigots.
And Paul Cornell writes:
Standing with @IreneGallo this morning, as the Puppies find yet another way to degrade our genre.
Scott Edelman put it succiently by writing:
Je suis @IreneGallo.
There has been no additional comments from Tor or Ms. Gallo.
David Gerrold makes and excellent point with the Star Trek episode.
The “it was a personal facebook/webspace” or “free speach” logic…
That died along time ago. The perpetually outraged decided that the way the rules of the game were to be played anything said or done anywhere counted.
So, time to grow up folks, if you are unprofessional, anywhere, anytime, it could cost you.
But you know something funny…
Since Tom Doherty didnt fire her…(Which would have happened in most companies in the US if a “creative director” got caught bashing customers, and/or products on the interwebtubes.)
…I think by the issuing the statement he did, Tom Doherty was trying to do Gallo a favor, that he was trying to protect her.
But he did it in an awkward and frankly poorly thought out way…especially with the years of nearly identical behavior by the Neilson Haydens, and the more recent behavior by Tor editor Moshe Feder. Going public on Gallo was poor form. He should have issued the letter without mentioning her name.
I wonder what the long term damage to Tor/forge (as opposed to tor-dot-com which has been a “joke” for years) is…they have ticked off both sides, and I dont see an easy way for them to get out of it.
BTW- for david “sad puppies wont get jobs” gerrold to complain about “over reaction” that is a hoot!
Minor correction: I don’t think Rachel Swirksy is a Hugo winner, although she has been nominated. She is also a two-time Nebula winner.
Let me break it down in terms David Gerrold would understand. If one of his esteemed Tribbles were held up to Irene Gallo, or several other Tor editor’s hearts the poor thing would be bleating in alarm and distressed. Even brain dead Tribble and a Sad Puppy knows when a mean spirited sociopath is in dangerous proximity.
Sadly in the real world there is an entity that feeds off of hate just like in “The Day of the Dove”. It is call the mainstream media. If the story bleeds, it leads because that is what sells, gets people tuned in for more, and gins up the hatred. There are many things that fire up a public. Nazis, racists, homophobes, and the corruption of politics seem to draw a lot of attention. So when Irene “I’m not speaking for Tor” Gallo calls someone these things it is OK? because……????
Imagine this scenario: Irene Gallo is a known pedophile and frequently slept with her father. The story is run it on every magazine and blasted on the news channels. And if you stand up for “The pedophile” you get splashed because you must approve of pedophilia. Call for civility? for, well, you must have no moral code because you applaud incest too. Get the picture?
Character assassination is WRONG. PERIOD. The SJWs are saying “SHUT UP OR WE WILL DESTROY YOU.” We have been abused by these people and I for one am sick of taking it. I am calling for a fair shake in the Hugos—that is all. How is that unreasonable. Why shouldn’t I expect not be slandered and vilified? Those comments are so vicious that my association with the Sad Puppies could call into question my job. What gives Irene Gallo and the editors of Tor the right to say these things with impunity? I’m not calling for her side to be excluded. I’m calling for them to be civil. And yes, like a kicked dog I get pissed when someone abuses me. I may not smile as you call me a Nazi or attempt to stain my reputation with a lie but I’m not responding in kind. Don’t expect me to be nice after abusing me.
@Wild Ape: The puppies have been labeling people SJWs all over the place and have been calling them things like nazis, feminazis and what not from the very beginning. There has not been an ounce of civility in this from the sad puppies.
Gallo spoke her mind, she had nothing to apologize for and your attempts to silence the opposition by fake outrage over imagined wrongs are quite frankly pathetic.
Beale thinks Anders Breivik will be hailed as a national hero in Norway. Sorry, but if the combat boot fits, then wear it and quit whining!
> your attempts to silence the opposition by fake outrage over imagined wrongs are quite frankly pathetic.
Welcome to the blog.
I enjoy a good debate, and I’m happy to see some frank back-and-forth. Where I draw the line is personal insults, from either side.
This is your only warning. Next time, I’ll cancel your account, and delete all your comments.
@Corwin—I don’t mind her voicing her opinion. I’ll even listen to those who have opposing views without dismissing them as whiners. I draw the line at being called a racist Nazi. Your argument is flat and your support of her slander isn’t promoting your cause. Kindly point out what I personally have done that has been racist, homophobic, or misogynistic. If so I will make amends and gladly recount what I’ve said to her personally as she gave me no such courtesy.
Beale has many opinions. If you hold me accountable for what he says then would it be fair for me to hold you accountable for what she says? I have never applauded him when he has voiced his unsavory viewpoints. There again is a difference. Are you saying that it is okay to engage in ad hominem attacks and guilt by association because you don’t like a particular group?
Perhaps I did come off as whining to you. Let me be clear then. I’m not ASKING for a place at the table, I’m TAKING it. I’m playing by the rules in accordance with what Worldcon set and I haven’t done anything that breaks them. You may or may not like my choices or my politics or that I don’t smile when people you support call me vile things. That is your problem, not mine. I CHOOSE to act with civility towards you and those you support but and I am suggesting that do the same as it benefits us all. This is not whining. I am not engaging in “fake outrage”—I am furious and it is perfectly normal to be outraged when someone calls you these unjustified and mean spirited things. Like you, I have been warned by John not to whip out my flame thrower and hose down people with a difference of opinion. Welcome to the hot corner of Black Gate. Other blogs go and flame their opposition but here both sides come to discuss and talk. I’ve personally made many amendments to my original thinking and I’ve come to know that the Sad Puppies have made some mistakes but I’m trying to change the culture that avoids social violence and not fan the flames. There are several that post here at Black Gate that I’ve locked horns with, John included, but I’ve managed to build bridges and good relations with the vast majority whom I’ve had troubles with here.
So if no other Sad Puppy has treated you with an ounce of civility then let me be the first to do so Corwin. I know that there are some Sad Puppy sites that say vicious things about your side just as your side does on theirs. There is nothing we can do about what goes on over there. Here we can rationally discuss what they cannot discuss over there. I think both sides peek in here to see what we are saying here because this is a place where that is possible.
So, can you answer my earlier question or do you want to change your mind about me being a Nazi?
Thank you for the welcome, even it is under such circumstances. I’ll stick to the rules, but I find that clear words are crucial in this discussion.
Good, let us have a civil discussion.
The point I am trying to make is the following:
Irene Gallo called Rabid Puppies, a movement led Theodore Beale a neo-nazi campaign.
Theodore Beale has made numerous statements that display a neo-nazi mindset. Can we agree on that or do you want the examples cited?
Neo-Nazi in this context is not even an insult, it’s a description of a political mindset. It’s like calling Che Guevara a commie.
A movement with a clear leader figure, takes the political tint of that leader. To stay within the WW2 scenario, the followers of Hitler were the nazis. If a person followed Hitler, voted for him and generally identified with and aided his movement, they were a nazi, even if they disagreed with him on some points and did not applaud every single thing he said.
I therefore think that Irene Gallo was simply stating the facts about the rabid puppies movement. And I don’t think that this is something she should have to apologize for.
To your question: I am here defending this statement of Gallos. This is a cause I chose to support, so it is perfectly fine for you to hold me responsible for what she said.
You felt that you were slandered by her description. I don’t know your very own political views. Do you follow Beale? Do you identify as a rabid puppy? If not, then neither Gallo, nor me did apply the term nazi to you.
But if you support rabid puppies and its leader, then I believe that you are factually supporting a neo-nazi movement and answering your question: yes, I do believe that also reflects back on you. It’s the nature of associating with a political movement.
I have the impression and sincerely hope that you do not agree with Theodore Beale that throwing acid in women’s faces is a “rational” way to stabilize marriages, but when you follow the lead of someone, who has made a statement such as this, yes, then I’d call you a misogynist.
If you associate with a political movement, you are associated with that movement’s politics. You seem to feel, that this is unfair? Why?
The term “guilt by association” is usually used to describe a situation where people are held responsible for the deeds of family, friends or business partners, that they had nothing to do with.
If you support a political movement,however, I don’t think it is unfair to associate you with that movements views. It is a link you consciously chose, not something you just stumbled into unwittingly.
I see that the puppies tend to have a problem here, because while they have clear leader figures, the other side doesn’t have those and is consequently harder to pin down. They are simply defined by being not puppy.
So while I chose to stand with Gallo, I don’t feel responsible for what other non-puppies have written, because I do not follow their lead.
I also do not hold you responsible, for the uncivilized behavior of other puppy followers and I’d be really happy to have a civilized discussion with you.
However, both puppy movements have clear leader figures and I think their behavior does reflect on their followers. Do you agree?
I reject the term Nazi, neo-Nazi entirely. First off, the term is offensive and beyond the pale. It is the equivalent of the N word directed towards white people and both are words that should not be used. It has tones of white supremacy, gleeful genocide, and inhumanity, and aggressive behavior. It is demeaning to me and I find it highly offensive.
I don’t think the term should be applied to Beale either. Let me get to the core of what your argument seems to be. You want to freely call me that and I will not allow that if you want to continue a discussion or a debate.
What you really want to do is to paint Beale as a Nazi and therefore dismiss everything that I say in order to side step my pending arguments. You are completely off base about Beale being a Nazi. You call Che a communist when in fact he was a communist and a terrorist to boot. So let us define terms. Also, since I think you really are hoping that I am a big fan of Beale and you would rather debate him than the issues I bring up, let me show you where you are dead wrong about him.
First, a Nazi is short for National Socialist. Beale is 180 from a socialist. He loathes socialism in any form and he rejects any sort of Keynesian economics. This is probably the only area that I agree with Beale. I agree with his views on economics. So–by definition–you are wrong.
Beale has some views of races that I find cringe worthy. Beale believes that there are advantaged (he would say superior) and disadvantaged (he would say inferior)races. I’m paraphrasing but his blog is not hard to find and his beliefs are posted there. He may use terms that white supremacists might use but it is laughable to think of him as one. He has stated that he is not. He claims to be primarily of Mexican heritage with some Native American and British ancestry. That is not exactly ubermensch material now is it? He would be booted out of any Aryan nutcase circle. He and I differ greatly on race. I am proud of my heritage, I wouldn’t qualify as Aryan either but I don’t believe my pride is or should be at the expense of, or diminish any other culture or race. Beale thinks he is superior, genetically, mentally, and morally. I do not choose to argue in his place.
Then we have Beale’s take on feminism. I’ve read the text where he talks about the acid in the woman’s face. First off, Beale sometimes has dark humor and it was meant to highlight how Muslims are quick to defend their culture. (His beliefs, not mine) It was meant to be funny but his real beliefs seem to be that he questions neo feminism and thinks it weakens society. I didn’t find the comment amusing then nor would I ever approve of violence against women. I find that unmanly and repulsive. Beale has said the same but he is mired by that comment and I do not choose to defend him. It is his mess to clean up, not mine.
I don’t know if Beale approves of genocide or not. I frankly don’t care. I know that he believes in fourth generation warfare so it is possible that he does. I’m not up to speed on Crevald’s theories. To me, genocide is the dark nature of humanity and it is soulless in its intent. I reject it even for my enemies.
If you want to debate about Beale being a troll, I’m not going to argue. He is. That is NOT the debating point. He says many repulsive and obnoxious things. His intent with his words is to hurt and he doesn’t care what kind of pain he might deliver. To be accurate, Beale is a Libertarian. That is why he is conservative in his moral views and economic ideals. There is nothing that the Nazis believe that I see in Beale other than the high opinions they have of their race. When you look at Libertarian beliefs and Beale’s they match. Beale has even called himself a Libertarian. So your Nazi theory and insult doesn’t fly.
You also talked about guilt by association and that too is a pile of dog doo-doo. Beale isn’t a Sad Puppy which is an entirely different group. You said that you stand by what Irene Gallo said and that she was referring to Beale’s group and not the Sad Puppies. Perhaps you should READ what it is that she said. When she says “There are two extreme right-wing to neo-nazi groups, called the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies respectively, that are calling for the end of social justice in science fiction and fantasy. They are unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic.” The way I read and interpret the word “two” which are “Rabid Puppies and Sad Puppies” it means that she did indeed direct the comment to the Sad Puppies. How did you interpret that? This is the part of what she said that I took great offense to. Not when she said, “A noisy few but they’ve been able to gather some Gamergate folks around them and elect a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works on this year’s Hugo ballot.” For me, this is just her opinion of her taste in fiction. No harm, no foul.
I do not condone a lot of what Beale says or does. Like it or not the Sad Puppies are lumped together with Beale and the Rabid Puppies. I will say only this about what I’ve observed about Beale that might shed light about why he is like he is. There is a mental condition called Asperger’s Syndrome. It is similar to autism and it is possible that Beale is a highly functional person afflicted with Asperger’s disease. Beale seems to have no social filter when he says the most mean spirited things. He seems completely detached and indifferent about the mayhem his words cause. Many people with Asperger’s are highly intelligent and focused and it is possible that he may be afflicted with it and not know it. That is why he might sometimes be both rational, logical, and yet crude in what he says. I’ve spoken to him twice at Black Gate and he has never been mean to me. Nazi? No way. Trollish? Uh, yeah.
I’m not here to debate or defend Beale. I am here to defend myself. What Irene said has repercussions. In our society to be a racist or a Nazi or a misogynist could get you fired from your job. It would mean public shame and humiliation. Your attitude about guilt by association is wrong headed and dangerous. It wouldn’t be hard to link me to my handle. Smearing my reputation because YOU AND IRENE THINK that I am like Beale and therefore a Nazi, homophobe, racist, etc. Families get hurt by that. Careers have been ruined by the PERCEPTION of those hateful things. It also allows for people to bypass a debate and dismiss what they have to say.
Suppose I call you and Irene pedophiles and spread a rumor that you have had incestuous relations with your father. Or that you guys are secretly big fans of Beale. Why then that would have social damage too. You would also have to PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE. It wouldn’t be fair now would it? That is the kind of charge that your Irene Gallo thinks is okay to hand out. Guilt by association won’t fly. Beale isn’t my leader, he doesn’t speak for me, and he isn’t even a Sad Puppy.
So, if we are to debate you need to quit calling me a Nazi. It is offensive and inaccurate. You need to retract your words that you back up Irene calling me a racist, homophobe, etc. or PONY UP SOME PROOF. Beale is a non starter for a debate. I’m not going to debate anything about Beale’s views. I’m not going to let you wriggle out a fallacy and call it a debate or discussion.
> First, a Nazi is short for National Socialist. Beale is 180 from a socialist.
I don’t mean to interject myself between you and Corwin, but I did want to correct one factual boo-boo in your lengthy comments above.
Yes, “Nazi” is short for National Socialist. However, the Nazis weren’t socialist — far from it. They were an-ultra right wing fascist political party.
The confusion stems from the way American politics has come to define socialists as left-wing (just right of communism), which is considerably different from the way it was used in Weimar Germany, when the Nazi party formed.
I thought it would be useful to clear that up. Carry on!
” However, the Nazis weren’t socialist — far from it. They were an-ultra right wing fascist political party.”
Care to explain that logic?
I respectfully disagree John. You can find the Nazi platform here and read it for yourself.
I do agree that what confuses many Americans is that they think of German (and many European) left and right to be the equivalent of the American left and right. They aren’t. The German left wing at that time was the Communist party and the Socialists were right wing. They don’t really have a right like ours even today. The German right are a lot more like the Democrats in America today.
If you read the Nazi party platform. It calls for the centralization of industry, the sharing of trusts, land and profit sharing, welfare, and a host of other socialist policies. They call for socialized medicine and increases to national old age pensions (social security). The practically mirror our Democratic party in many respects. Weird huh?
Our right wing is definitely not for centralized industry like Communist and Socialists are, they are free market types. I think you’d have a hard time making the argument that conservatives are pro welfare, socialized medicine, and public dole types.
I won’t argue that the Nazis became fascists but fascism can be applied to any centralized ham handed tyrannical government. When they centralized their power it paved the way for them to enforce their ruthless government.
Colleges I think mislead this point in history. Forgive this reference but I think it is accurate. It shows the breakdown of the German political parties in 1933:
If you note and read the descriptions there really isn’t an equivalent to our right unless you want to call the German Democrats that but they were pretty much socialists too. Merkel comes from that group and she is hardly what we would call a conservative.
> Care to explain that logic?
I never said it was logical.
> I do agree that what confuses many Americans is that they think of German (and many European) left and right to be the
> equivalent of the American left and right. They aren’t. The German left wing at that time was the Communist party and the
> Socialists were right wing. They don’t really have a right like ours even today.
This is absolutely true. “Left” and “Right” have sometimes had fluid meanings over the last century. I’m not going to go down the rathole arguing their exact meaning here, but it’s very true that “far right wing” became rather explicitly redefined after WWII to equate with strong centralized government and fascism (often epitomized by the Nazis), and “far left-wing” was their ideological opposites, the Communists.
Obviously not everyone will agree, but this this is the political spectrum I was taught in Canada:
[…] https://www.blackgate.com/2015/06/10/support-for-irene-gallo-continues-to-grow/ […]
First off, you asked me, how I interpret Irene’s statement. I interpreted it so that she called the sads extreme right and the rabids, nazi, respectively.
She did make a distinction in my opinion and so do I. So if you are not a rabid puppy, no one is calling you a nazi.
You can argue that the distinction was worded clearly enough but I think that is hairsplitting, considering that the puppies also have overlaps and can not always be superclearly distinguished from each other.
About the term nazi or neo-nazi: I think you are inaccurate to claim it is a slur against white people.
I come from Austria. We’ve had the nazis right here and we unfortunately have neo-nazi movements in our politics. We also have laws like the “Wiederbetätigungsgesetz” which prohibit nazi idiology. The socialism is certainly not what defines nazi under these laws. Their economic stance is not relevant at all. There were socialist and capitalist elements in there, but they are not what defines todays neo-nazi movements.
The things that do are:
-) Ideologies of racial supremacy (which race is not relevant, every nazi picks their own as the supreme one (google the ukrain Ugri for a non aryan example)
-) Violent misogyny and antifeminism, because they believe women should be used for breeding and as subordinates to males.
-) Violent racism against whoever is the victim of the day. Jews are still a thing but today violent aggression against muslims is far more common in Europe.
Anders Breivik, Beale’s norwegian “national hero” was a neo-nazi, who shot the kids of socialist party members in a holiday camp.
So, how do you move on in this discussion:
I don’t think the sads were called neo-nazi. I bind my deffinition to the rabids and Beale and if you do not follow them, then I don’t think you are a neo-nazi and I don’t think Irene called you that. So, is this ok for you, or not?
I strongly disagree that nazi is a slur akin to n-. It is sometimes used as such, e.g. in slurs like feminazi. But in context with Beale it is a description of a very real political movement.
To prohibit the term from the usual fannish discussion makes sense, since it is vastly overused on the net. But to prohibit it from a political discussion, where it is relevant, would be a silencing via misunderstood political correctness, something my inner libertarian does reject.
That really seems to be jumping through hoops in order to get the NAZIs out of the leftist-authoritarian camp…
The NAZIs were not “ideological opposites” of communists, they had more in common than they had differences. Anti-capitalism, anti-aristocracy, anti-corporation, authoritarian control of the individual, state control of the economy…
Sure they may have been “right of the communists” but that is like saying Utah is east of Nevada…pretty meaningless if you are ankle deep in the Atlantic…
Their ideological opposite would probably be best described as laizzefaire libertarianism (which is also the near the opposite of socialism, fascism, and communism), which I will say didnt exist in Germany at the time, or anywhere…
but the biggest problem is trying to use a one dimensional measurement to describe a three dimensional world.
This is more my style:
or go read this:
http://doqz.livejournal.com/339882.html (note this is not mine, just something I discovered ages ago and saved the bookmark for these conversations…)
> That really seems to be jumping through hoops in order to get the NAZIs out of the leftist-authoritarian camp…
I understand that when American conservatives get together, they find ways to somehow describe Nazis as “left wing” instead of “right wing.” As I said, I’m not particularly interested in going down that rhetorical rat hole. I have no particular desire to convince you one way or the other; I’m a Canadian, with no dog in this race. I’m just letting you know that the 90% of the world sees it very, very differently.
And anyway, I’m reasonably confident that if we can’t agree that the Nazis were a right-wing organization, we’re not going to agree on much of anything.
To define the nazis primerily via their economic concepts is something that US- right wingers like to do, to distance themselves from them, but it is not what primarily defined them, or what defines neo-nazi ideology in current German and Austrian legislation.
The term neo-nazi mainly refers to ideologies of racial supremacy.
Like I wrote above, the laws prohibiting nazi ideology don’t prohibit socialism, because economics are irrelevant to the debate.
What they do focus on is racism and also anti-democratic ideologies.
@John—I think I see the problem with your source. It is from Yale which is a hotbed of liberal thinking. I reject that political scale for two important reasons. The first is that it is built under a false assumption and false dilemma that the extreme right leads to fascism and extreme left to anarchy and second, that it is purposefully misleading in order to make it memorable and create misdirection.
The first misdirection is that one has to make the assumption the wing spread moves from conservatism to monarchy and then to fascism and that communism leads to anarchy. How does that happen in the real world? Communism and socialism are by definition centralized economies. The bigger government the better to hand out all the goodies that government is going to give to all their worthy minions. They go from huge government to no government at all? Find that one for me in history. It is probably next to the jackalope and unicorn. The way that scale is set up is to make communism look more palatable. After all, very few people are crazy enough to favor true anarchy, and that scale is centered on liberalism (which surprise surprise has the Democrat symbol). Don’t you think that makes the liberals look like an even minded philosophy just like the professor that wrote it? Then you have conservatives suddenly chucking their principles and going for centralized government and Nazism and then the dreaded Fascism. I can almost hear the professor’s Yoda like voice braying that conservatism leads to Nazism and Nazism leading to suffering. That scale is so steeped in false dilemma. Where in history has that happened?
Look at history to see if that scale works and you’ll quickly find how flawed it is and what it leaves out and why. Germany was so far to the left that it was either socialism and/or communism. Germany didn’t suddenly become liberal, then conservative, the monarchy, then Nazi , and finishing with fascism did it? No, it remained socialist and stepped away from communism and became a nation of National-socialists. No, that scale is false at least and a deliberate lie at worst.
I disagree with the notion that fascism belongs on the scale at all. Fascism only needs centralized power to metastasize. Look at the Roman Empire, the Maoist China, Stalin’s reign, Hitler and you will find a strong centralized power and a ruthless mindset. Does fascism occur in republics and free market systems? No, because it doesn’t have centralized power. Again, his scale is as accurate as a five year into the future weather report.
I suggest that your professor at Yale had other motives. I think he wanted that image in your head as a precautionary not to go too far to the right and that being an even minded liberal was a sensible thing.
@Corwin—Thank you for agreeing about calling me a Nazi is improper. I also agree with your parameters that to label something of a fannish topic as Nazi-ish destroys the conversation but might be good when we get to the political areas so I can accept those parameters. I do think that your Austrian definition of Nazi is agreeable in many respects. I agree that being a socialist does not necessarily make you a Nazi just like Austria defines the term. I have only a few words to describe a socialist and its political movement whereas your country might have several terms to describe the various degrees of socialism based on their behaviors and beliefs so I do accept SOME of your terminology. A penchant for violence is within two of your points and the other seems to be a contempt of an extreme belief. Okay, that definition still falls WITHIN my definition because it is more descriptive but your counter definition DOES NOT negate mine.
You may certainly separate the neo Nazi term from the Sad and Rabid puppies if you wish and I will take that as an acceptance that Irene Gallo was wrong. Still, by both your definition and mine even the Rabid Puppies don’t qualify as Nazis. They simply have an obnoxious viewpoint. I’m not here to defend the Rabid Puppies as they can fend for themselves.
I do think that Nazi qualifies as a slur word. Since we can agree to not use this to describe fannish behavior or dislike of a person but still use it as a political description then I’m fine with that. I can agree that Nazi’s are a socialist political movement who are often violent to advance their cause and who frequently dehumanize others in order to promote their own culture, race, or viewpoint. Therefore to apply that term to Sad or Rabid Puppies is inappropriate. You haven’t made a counter to showing how Beale is a Nazi and you have backed away from Irene Gallo’s response labeling me as such—thank you.
I disagree that the distinction between Sad and Rabid Puppies is “hair splitting”. It is core to most of the debate. And yes, there are overlaps that are hard to distinguish but I think this is the definition of the Sad Puppy in short: We a fair shake for our literature of choice in the Hugos. We don’t want to be rudely treated just because of our political, religious, or moral beliefs. We are not about the destruction of the Hugo. The Rabid Puppies are about destroying the Hugo. That is the distinction as I see it.
Irene Gallo made no distinction in her quote when she applied the term neo Nazi to the Sad and Rabid Puppies. She has not, to my knowledge adjusted her comment, nor has she apologized. Please reread it Corwin because you missed something in your interpretation. By the way— I loved Salzburg. The Austrians were some of the nicest people I’ve met on the planet.
@John—sorry, but you need to check your facts. Look at the Nazi agenda and then match it against the tenants of socialism. THEY ARE SOCIALIST and socialist in nature. TW is spot on that the right of conservatism is laisse faire libertarianism. Less government, free markets are not as hard a stretch as going from conservatism to more government, more socialism, and more centralized power—come on! You are stretching your logic John–your choice, red or blue pill.
I think Corwin is also reinforcing our point. Nazis are socialists with a culture of racism and violence. Kindly show me the evidence that shows that proves that conservatives become more socialist and more centralized and more violent when they become more extreme. But in Greece, Austria, Hungary, Germany, and many other socialist countries socialism morphs into Nazism many times because they are idealogically aligned with socialism.
> I think I see the problem with your source. It is from Yale which is a hotbed of liberal thinking.
I’ve never been to Yale. This is what I was taught in high school in Canada (and then again in college, in a different province.)
Yale: that hotbed of liberal thinking as can be seen from graduates such as George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, William F. Buckley, Dick Cheney … oh, wait. What/
I’m glad you enjoyed Salzburg.
I think, where our stances still differ is in a) I do think that Irene differentiated between sad and rabid by using the word respectively.
and b) I still think describing Beale as a neo-nazi is accurate and his views tint the rabid puppy movement.
Beale is not a socialist, I agree. But like I explained socialism is not the defining quality of the national socialist movement. There are many forms of socialism that have nothing in common with and are diametrally opposed to the nazi terror.
Beale’s embrace of Breivik’s terrorist acts and anti-democratic motives constitutes an embrace of nazi ideology for me.
His views on his racial supremacy constitute an embrace of nazi ideology for me
His views on women’s rights constitute an embrace of nazi ideology and they are the very deffinition of dehumanizing.
And those are defining points of nazism. That he is not wearing Hugo Boss (who designed the nazi uniforms for them) and is not a socialist, does not mean that he doesn’t peddle nazi ideology.
To some it up, I mistook you for part of the rabid puppy movement, because you felt offended by Gallo’s statement, which in my opinion was directed at the rabid puppies.
I stand by the fact that she made an accurate statement about the rabid puppy movement, founded on its leader’s politics. And taking a stand against neo-nazis is nothing anyone should apologize for.
@scottken–anybody who is connected can go to Yale. Did any one of those guys actually teach there? Please list the conservative professors there–I’m sure there is at least one token conservative.
@Corwin—I won’t disagree that Beale holds some ideals that the Nazi’s share. Your are making a logical fallacy. Hitler is a Nazi. Hitler loved dogs too but not every dog lover is a Nazi. I’m saying that by definition you also have to be a socialist in order to be a Nazi. If you read the tenants of the Nazi party they were socialist—period. They even called themselves socialist. Germany’s political spectrum did not extend to an American party equivalent. The furthest left in America during the time period was the Democratic party and even they were further to the right of the Nazis. I’m not arguing that every socialist is a Nazi. I’m agreeing that in order to make a Nazi they must also have those traits you espoused. You said it yourself that you are a libertarian, he claims to be as well but he is definitely not a socialist. Libertarians can run a wide range of beliefs and views but not be socialists or Nazis. Perhaps he does pedal some ideals that the Nazis did but in order for a Nazi to act out in its aggression it must have centralized power and socialism is central to the classic Nazi mold.
I’m not here to debate whether or not Beale has odious viewpoints about women and Breivik. I completely agree that those viewpoints are wrong. Beale may like dogs like Hitler, he might have a short moustache, he might applaud Breivik and believe in a superior race for all I know but that does not make him a Nazi.
As for Irene Gallo. She used the word and which is a conjuction and there for applies the term to both Sad and Rabid Puppies. It seems to me that you support her more because she stands up against Nazi viewpoints and that you distinguish the difference between the Puppy camps where as she does not.
@John—I learned theory in high school and college and reality in my professional world. I never questioned the credibility of a high school teacher and I made the mistake ONCE of questioning my college professors who tended to be liberals. I figured it was better to get the degree and keep my head low. Now after years of experience I question and see things in a different light. Some of the professors’ theories were sound and some were a load of crap. That politically drenched line is a good example of brainwashing. It is designed to make liberalism looked balanced and smart, communism and socialism reasonable, and conservatives to be whacko. Unless you can show me how a conservative when allowed to be extreme can go from centralized government and market or show me how the Nazis were small government laisse faire capitalist minded—-YOUR ARGUMENT IS FLAWED. Look at the actual Nazis and their political platform. Look at the name itself and it SCREAMS socialism. You need to make a better case.
@Corwin—I forgot to say that I won’t argue your point about the Rabid Puppies–not because I agree but they have made the Sad Puppies life hell by their extreme stances so they can fend for themselves. Besides there are better points to discuss and I think we can actually come to an understanding that can actually HEAL the sci-fi/fantasy community. I just got off work so I’m going to break and then advance and idea.
> Look at the name itself and it SCREAMS socialism. You need to make a better case.
I’m not trying to make a case. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Corwin and I seem to have that in common… we’re just letting you know that other nations view things very differently than American conservatives.
I have such mixed feelings about Gallo’s comments.
Because there are still real people who literally affiliate with real political parties, in several nations, that embrace the Nazi label, I think it’s important to use the term with some precision. Precision makes it much easier for us to have clarity when we are talking about such people and such organizations.
I think we might all be able to agree on that much. Can we?
On to the stuff we definitely won’t all agree on:
No matter how much I disagree with the Rabid Puppies, I don’t think literal Nazis are relevant to that disagreement. When someone uses the Nazi label, obviously, it’s relevant to have a meta-level discussion about the term, but I wish people on both sides would stop applying it and any of its derivatives to their opponents.
On the one hand, I regard the neo-Nazi label as inaccurate, even as applied to Theo Beale, because it refers to a political party, not to an ideology. In my opinion, it would be fair and accurate to describe Beale as a fascist (with a lower-case f), on the basis of his own stated positions.
On the other hand, I’m perplexed to see people who identify with the Sad Puppies fixate on the Neo-Nazi label, because Gallo went out of her way to make a distinction between the factions. She could have made the mistake of saying all the people who approve of the Hugo slate efforts were neo-Nazis, but by using the word “respectively,” she lit up a big neon sign saying these two groups are different in this matter, and then she shot off fireworks to make sure nobody missed the sign. That’s what the word “respectively” does. It’s a powerful word.
One reason I’m so surprised to see my friend Wild Ape, who has on many occasions painstakingly explained the differences between the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies, focus on the Nazi label is that I think the part of Gallo’s statement that really gets it wrong comes later.
She labels both factions as “unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic.” As applied to Theo Beale, on the basis of things he has actually said in public, this would be a fair description of him. For reasons others have gone into, applying it to the Rabid Puppies generally is not unreasonable. I really don’t think it’s fair to assume this of the Sad Puppies. And as to their being “unrepentantly” anything in particular, I’ve seen some Sad Puppies express profound regret over allying with Theo Beale, some of them specifically because they disagree with Beale’s views on race, gender, and orientation.
On the other hand, the double standard issue is a real one. When Sean Fodera maligned Mary Robinette Kowal, he called her a great many incendiary things, the most troubling of which, to me, was “unperson.” Declaring a human being to be non-human is a rhetorical move that often either precedes violence or lays the groundwork for later deliberate efforts to incite violence. Fodera himself may not have intended the word that way at all, but such words are like magnets for violently unhinged people, and it only takes one sociopath to ruin your whole day. Fodera was not publicly shamed by his employer, though his conduct certainly reflected on Tor/Forge, and Fodera’s bad behavior dragged on and on before the eventual apology. (By contrast, if Gallo has put her foot in her mouth about the Hugo slates more than the one time, I haven’t seen mention of it. We’d probably have heard by now.)
And Jim Frenkel’s in-person harassment of many women over many years was an order of magnitude worse. I won’t even go into it, because that kind of behavior makes me a kind of angry I really don’t want to be out loud here at BG. Google it if you want to find accounts of the situation much closer to first-hand than mine would be. I’ll just say that an employer that sent Frenkel out to represent them at public events for years, despite his growing reputation as a harasser, that never issued any kind of official statement about him really does seem to have a double standard.
I think in this instance Irene Gallo was careless and insufficiently informed, which is surprising, because in her professional capacity she is absolutely the best at what she does in the field of sf/f. And I think it’s unfortunate that Tom Doherty didn’t think Fodera’s and Frenkel’s inappropriate public discourse and behavior merited public statements. I don’t hold the view that it was inappropriate per se for Doherty to publish his letter of clarification, just that he shouldn’t have let much worse things slide in the past.
>>And anyway, I’m reasonably confident that if we can’t agree that the Nazis were a right-wing organization, we’re not going to agree on much of anything.<> (By contrast, if Gallo has put her foot in her mouth about the Hugo slates more than the one time, I haven’t seen mention of it. We’d probably have heard by now.)<>I think in this instance Irene Gallo was careless and insufficiently informed<
Having been a long time commenter (though much less often of late) at tor-dot-com and having witnessed her moderation style, I think she was expressing her true feelings. She seems to hold those that dare to disagree with her to be below contempt, she responds in aggressive snarky ways, and she has no problem silencing those whose only offense is a contrary opinion. Granted she isnt even in the same league as Teresa Nielsen Hayden but I have little doubt that some of my comments in the various "puppy" threads here at Black Gate would have been "disappeared" if they were on tor-dot-com.
wow..what happened to that post, half of it is missing and the formatting is goofed up…
Ill try again:
>And anyway, I’m reasonably confident that if we can’t agree that the Nazis were a right-wing organization, we’re not going to agree on much of anything
Sorry to hear that. But I see that any further efforts will be fruitless, so I will not continue.
>By contrast, if Gallo has put her foot in her mouth about the Hugo slates more than the one time, I haven’t seen mention of it. We’d probably have heard by now.
I dunno if she has “put her foot in it” before, but I do know that the behavior of tor-dot-com contributors and moderators (of which Gallo in one) has been brought to the attention of multiple Tor/Forge authors (and the response has typically been “that is tor-dot-com not tor/forge, they are different things”).
So I wonder if Doherty stepping after this incident is that it was something that directly, and in a very public way, affected the branding of Tor/Forge and the relationship with their customer and author base. Plus it fell on the heels of one of the Tor editors also behaving in a similar manner.
I say it directly affected Tor/forge in that while it happened on a “personal” facebook page it was done while promoting a tor product, and the response to criticism was childish and unprofessional.
That is what required a public response. But like I said above, the response was poorly done, it should not have mentioned her by name, and it should have been more general as why there was such an announcement.
The other instances you mention…
Well I doubt any corporation will make a public announcement regarding action taken in a harassment case, where legal action may be forthcoming, unless it involved somebody very high up in the chain of command…and I dont know if Frenkel was high enough up to merit it.
As to the Fedora/Kowal thing, that seemed to be a personal thing between them, and didnt seem directly involve the company or its relationship with customers or authors (other than Kowal).
>I think in this instance Irene Gallo was careless and insufficiently informed
Having been a long time commenter (though much less often of late) at tor-dot-com and having witnessed her moderation style, I think she was expressing her true feelings. She seems to hold those that dare to disagree with her to be below contempt, she responds in aggressive snarky ways, and she has no problem silencing those whose only offense is a contrary opinion. Granted she isnt even in the same league as Teresa Nielsen Hayden but I have little doubt that some of my comments in the various “puppy” threads here at Black Gate would have been “disappeared” if they were on tor-dot-com.
Concerning terminology: The socialism falls into the same category as the dog loving and the Hugo Boss clothes. Yes, they are traits of the nazis (or Hitler in case of the dogs) but they are not what made them problematic and they are not what defined them.
The dehumanizing racial ideology did and that is what is termed nazi ideology today and prohibited by law in the former nazi ruled countries.
Further Gallo used the term neo-nazi. Todays neo-nazi movements are something seperate from the original nazi movement. They are closely connected by the violent dehumanising racial ideology, but these movements are by no means socialist anymore. Some are anarchist and see the state as a complete enemy, some have their roots in eastern European states in active anti-communism.
And I’m talking here about groups where people run around with swastikas tatooed on their heads, you don’t get anymore nazi than that, but neo-nazis have little to no (depending on the groups)socialist ideology.
Calling Beale a neo-nazi is a fair and correct description of his politics.
But you are not a rabid puppy and I can see, where defending Beale is not the points we should argue, since you brought up healing the community.
In my opinion the community could heal if the slate voting was abandoned. If the puppies proposed sets of nominations that are larger than the ballot (like other sites do) and their sites turn to literary discussion of these works instead of being exclusively focused on their politics.
I’m afraid though, that this is not going to happen and next year people will bring up left wing slates and it will just become all about politics and the Hugo will be a pointless prize and Beale will have won.
Excuse the spelling, please. I was way too tired when I posted.
Hey man, I’m late to this whole deal, but I thought I’d step in and add two cents that has nothing to do with most of the ideological back-and-forth, and address what initially pissed you off from a compositional perspective.
Having read your comments on a lot of these posts in recent months, I think that you do, indeed, find many of the views of the “Rabid Puppy” side distasteful. You do not wish to be associated with their more egregiously offensive views and are annoyed — nay, outraged — that the group you identify with, the “Sad Puppies,” have been conflated with them.
I went back and read the actual statement of Irene Gallo, and if you diagram that sentence, you see that she A) speaks of two groups covering a range from extremist to neo-Nazi, and then she lists the “Sad Puppies” and “Rabid Puppies” respectively. The key word there is “respectively.” It makes a distinction between them, specifically identifying them as being the two sides of that defined range (extremist and neo-Nazi).
You were really angry that she called you a neo-Nazi. I have good news. She did not. She called you an extremist. She called Rabid Puppies neo-Nazis (and I, for one, am glad you are not a Rabid Ape). So, that is a relief? Everyone can calm down now about this? Heh heh heh.
I spent the day today at Robert E. Howard’s home. I saw the typewriter where he hammered out stories that I have enjoyed since I was twelve years old. I walked where he walked and I paid my respects to him. It was a grand day. Then I logged on to Black Gate.
For those who had my back and said that I am not a Nazi, or a racist, or a homophobe, or a misogynist–thank you. For those who kept their silence, I noted that. When your reputations are assaulted I will pay y’all back in kind as you have me.
I’m known as a Santa Claus at my work. I am slowly replacing my paperback books with electronic copies and I take those books that I no longer need and give them away. Just doing my bit for the environment and although I don’t think the world is going to go up in an inferno I do know that trash can heap up and make a paradise a garbage heap. Several people are Warhammer 40K fans and they have Gaunt’s Ghosts, the Horace Heresy Series, and they’ve walked away with them with big smiles on their faces. It warms my heart to know the stories that they will be reading. It is not only my profession to promote reading and literacy but it is also my own little crusade. Sci-fi, fantasy, mystery, and horror novels of big name and unknown authors are all there for the taking. Then I came to my David Gerrold novels. I did not give those books away. I loved the Chtorr novels, make no mistake. I threw them away. And to be clear, I did not put them in the recycle bin but in the trash can where it will wind up in a land fill somewhere. Any other author that wants to call me names will end up in the same place. I’m just “doing my part” for the environment.
@Corwin—I hate to break this to you but Beale already won. The Hugo was never his primary goal. He is a game designer and a scholar of war and he is adept at transferring what he learns to practical applications.
If you really hate Beale then you should learn what his weaknesses are. He isn’t the invulnerable juggernaut you paint him to be. I’d be more than happy to lay out what to do to counter him.
There are terms that are associated with voting and you mentioned that slate voting is wrong. Slate voting is defined as voting a straight ticket, verbatim, as it stands. A list is a suggested voting and allows one to choose what they like.
GRRM, Scalzi, and several others have said that they have privately done this. Beale claims there are 367 people or more who might have voted for his choices. In recent history there are only about 1,600 to 2,000 Hugo voters. There are also a lot of fan clubs who in the past have done the same for one book or two of their favorite novels. The bottom line is that this group voting has been going on for a long time and, as you say, will probably continue. Corwin—don’t despair, this can be easily countered. First, let me defend the Sad Puppy position.
This is the third year that the Sad Puppies have made a list. The first was purely Larry Correia and it didn’t get far because it was one man’s opinion of what was good with no input from his sympathizers. The second year they opened it up and it was more of a group input and it didn’t get far because it was still political and small in scope. The third year they opened up the list to input and they tossed out the politics. That is why the list has gender, political, and racial diversity and it had wider appeal and was successful. In fact, the Sad Puppy list was far more diverse than the previous year with the previous winners. If you look at the racial breakdown from last year’s Hugo winners they were all white but for one, and all male except for a couple of female winners. Last year’s Hugo winners were hardly diverse. This year with Sad and Rabid Puppy voters this year’s nominations are far broader in diversity.
It seems to me that the SJWs who claim to promote diversity and who have had influence in the Hugos have fallen short. They seem to be focused more on leftist politics and leftist narrative than on the merits of literature and stories. The Sad Puppies put story quality first and ended up with much more diverse results. So even if all these “neo-Nazi, racist, misogynist, homophobes” gain influence it seems that they are more likely to promote the literature over their political narratives.
What is best for fandom is for more fans to be involved in the Hugo nomination and voting process. Even Beale himself has changed his mind twice and has decided to vote for a China’s best. So if he is indeed a neo-Nazi then he is tepid at best. How many neo-Nazis in Austria would do the same? Beale has also voted for women. Evidently predicting where and when he will act on his misogyny might prove to be hard.
Give the Hugo problem time to work itself out. As a conservative one of my fundamental beliefs is that people, when given the facts, and when they are of good moral character tend to do the right thing. I believe that humans can be surprisingly noble and rational when they are not being threatened.
The Hugo voting problem has two problems: 1. There is no competition and therefore SJWs and Puppy groups have unbalanced effects on the outcome. The more people involved will dilute both sides power. The best thing one can do is promote what you like for a Hugo and to recruit more people to vote. 2. TONE DOWN THE RETORIC.
Now that you agree that I’m not a Nazi or a neo-Nazi, I’d like you to agree that I’m not a racist. We have CITIES RIOTING in America over racism. We have people and police at odds and people MURDERED in these riots. Do you think it is good to have Irene hand out a racist charge like that?—without proof—simply by guilt by association? That is too much power for her to wield. What exactly did the Sad Puppies do other than to vote for a Hugo nomination? How does that equate to racism. Brad Torgerson was called this and his wife is an African American.
You need to hold your own people accountable for what they say too. Remember what got Beale spun up in the first place was NK Jemisin being a troll. That woman has stirred just as much (censored word) as Beale but she gets a pass and he doesn’t. I’m not saying that because Jemisin acts like a bigoted troll excuses Beale. I’m saying that trolls should be treated as such. I’m saying that rejecting the haters of both camps will do more to heal fandom to reign in the rhetoric. Don’t expect any human being to put up with a double standard. She is as big a troll as Beale, maybe bigger.
@Sarah—-thank you for publically defending me.
I don’t know what the details are regarding Frenkel and Fedora. For me sexual harassment and how you handle it is management 101 easy stuff and if a manager doesn’t handle it is will ALWAYS destroy a team and end poorly. Despite being a Sad Puppy and therefore in Irene Gallo’s eyes a misogynist I can only say that I have never tolerated or condoned it on my watch.
I think you should illuminate that kind of bad behavior if you have witnessed it. Corruption, like cockroaches, run from the exposure of light. If you heard this second hand then I’d be wary of saying anything. I’ve done many investigations and they take a lot longer than 24 hours to gather all the details, and interview witnesses. Posting something on Facebook and Twitter is pretty easy to flesh out.
Tor has problems. I don’t have all the facts that Tom Doherty does (or should) so all I can do is Monday morning quarterback what he should have done. Does he have a sexual harassment policy? Is the policy effective? I don’t know what Doherty knows but I do know that from the outside looking in Frenkel and Fedora aren’t inspiring me to buy Tor books. When one editor says something bigoted or mean spirited I can shrug it off but when you have five or six high ranking editors doing that I’d say that there is a systemic pattern. I’d say that they are doing a lot to prove the Sad Puppy case about exclusion. If I were Doherty I would have said something to my editors back in April. If I were Doherty I would be weighing whether or not Irene Gallo is worth the cost. She has not amended or retracted her vicious charges. Personally I think she is too immature to handle the job and her breath stinks. Maybe she is talented and a salvageable asset but she definitely needs training and a guided and sincere apology.
If I were Doherty there would be several job openings. If I were Doherty’s boss he would be at the end of a conference table on the side that didn’t have a seat or a glass of water. We would be reviewing numerous policies and company expectations.
I don’t like how Tor writers are tossed under the bus and abused. I also think that Scalzi’s “big contract” deal is a little frightening too. Is that all a top writer and multiple Hugo awardee is worth? I’ll never buy another one of his books. If he was as good as Tor thinks he is and I were a publisher then I’d dangle a bigger carrot in front of him. Winning two Hugos and continual nominations put him in the ranks of Heinlein, Azamov, etc right?
@Corwin—-Beale has already won. The best you can hope for is to minimize the loss and damage. I don’t think the tactic of smear, distortion, and venom is working out for your team.
Nick–you and Sarah have a disarming effect on me. We are having a difference of semantics. Whereas you read Irene’s quote “to” as a range of Sad Puppies being right wing extremists and Rabid Puppies to be neo-Nazis I read “to” to be a scale that slides both parties to be ranging from right wing to neo-Nazis. Both could be right. Therefore I will accept your interpretation to further good will and not get stuck on something that will degrade the discussion. The higher purpose is to heal and end the poo flinging.
The other semantic trouble I have with Irene’s quote is that she then goes on to say: “They are unrepentantly racist, sexist and homophobic.” I interpret the antecedent of the pronoun “they” to be Sad and Rabid and that would be logical. I reject being called racist, sexist, and homophobic. Call me a Grammar Nazi if you like but that makes logical sense to me.
Instead of debating that and since I have rapport with you let me tell you what I really think.
She is young. It has been my experience that young people make mistakes. Several of her friends have come to her defense and so have people at Black Gate who I respect so it is probable that she isn’t a bad person. She is probably talented or else she would not be chairing the position she is in. It has not gone unnoticed with me that her comment was made back in May when things were heated and no one knew there were such things as Puppies let alone the difference between Sad and Rabid Puppies and their goals. It has also been my experience that sometimes young and talented people get put into a position that they have to grow into or do some personal growing. Her judgment is poor and what she really needs is a little mentoring and guidance. It has been my experience that most people will grow into the task if they are trained correctly. She has made a mess of things but she could work it out and come out sailing if she is smart. Her friends have already shown her support so she doesn’t have much to lose.
If she apologized she could do a lot to vent the steam that is building against her. I would start with Larry Correia because he has influence and the right kind of personality. I would say it something like this: “Larry, I made a mistake and I apologize for calling you a neo-Nazi, racist, homophobe, sexist. I would like to extend that to the Sad Puppies as well. I would like to see fandom heal and the rhetoric to become civil so I hope you will accept this. Thank you for asking your fans not to boycott Tor when the heat was on and I can’t erase what I said then but I can only do better from here forward.” Something like that would work. Correia is a military type. He’d accept it, post it, and move on. Most of the Sad Puppies would follow suit. Her friends would grumble but support her and the SJWs would crucify her for being a sell out like they did GRRM. She should not do that with Beale. She needs a different tactic with him and the Rabid Puppies.
I went to the Robert E Howard museum today and met Mark Shultz. He was a class act. He gave away–free– a huge stack of his Bran Mac Morn graphic novels and signed copies. He only asked for donations which he gave away to the museum. He talked to several young artists and took the time with each one and I got to see his portfolio originals and his soon to be released graphic novel. It was jaw dropping awesome. I thought of you and Derek. If Goth Chick had dared to come to Texas she would have been impressed with the total Goth artwork.
I also met Austin Rogers from Guardian Knight Comics. He was very cool. He gave me a 2015 preview book that was stunning. These guys have big league talent like Marvel, DC, Image, and Dark Horse. If you haven’t heard of them you will soon. He is also from Texas so I was beaming with pride.
I thought of John and Howard Andrew Jones when I went to a seminar about the letters between HP Lovecraft and Robert E Howard. The seminar highlighted the schism and friendship between these two writers and the debates they had in their letters about civilization versus barbarism. It has a lot of relevance to the fighting and debating between the left and right wing in the Hugos today. The gist of it was that Lovecraft and Howard were two completely different personalities and with different outlooks. Both were deeply entrenched in their beliefs and never gave ground. At first there was a lot of squabbling and flaming between the two but it turned into deep respect and friendship. So there is hope and it is possible that things will work out. I just wanted to share that.
@wild ape: I disagree with several points here:
“He isn’t the invulnerable juggernaut you paint him to be.”
Oh, I think he is a pathetic bully, who has no literary talent and couldn’t take it that a group of people called him out on behaving like a skinhead.
As a revenge tactic he is now bringing in hate groups (GG) to a relatively small community and aggitates people who feel marginalized within this community, because they are a minority in a democratic society (sad puppies).
He has by no means won. And he won’t if the slate noms go home with no award.
The real battle will come next year.
“GRRM, Scalzi, and several others have said that they have privately done this.”
A privately voted slate is a ballot. Everybody votes for one ballot in the end. That is hardly a conspiracy.
Many people have proposed individual books they liked on their blogs. But “hey, those were my favorites, what are yours?” differs wildly from “vote for those exact books, because then we can beat the stupid SJWs, because they in their disorganized stupidity vote for their favorite books”!
Being a long term reader of the Dresden files, I have read Skin Game. Why do you think it deserves a Hugo? Skin Game in my opinion was a fun (if a bit repetitive) romp, but if I compare it to Jo Walton’s Among Others, the winner from 2012, it just doesn’t hold up. The Hugo spells thought provoking for me and after “Among Others” I was coming back to it for weeks because it encapsulated my love for Sci-Fi so well and brought me back to so many favorites I had read as a teenager.
(By the way, if you answer that, that would be a first for me, because it would be the first time, a puppy answered to me actually about the literature in question instead of politics)
“The third year they opened up the list to input and they tossed out the politics.”
Do the nomination numbers. Really, they are up on file770 somewhere.
You find that there were more rabid voters than sad, on the few points where the lists conflicted and that in the nominations Beale’s numbers went to a maxnimum of 200 people (the number he is claiming now, is from people who buy his badges).
What made SP3 successfull was the support of RP, not “diversity”. That is the sad truth, you need to face.
Of course “quality” is subjective criterium, but I find the quality of puppy works I have read so far, ridiculously low and not up to speed with what the Hugo usually offers. Is there an individual story, you’d like to discuss?
We can compare to the nebulas, if you want.
The only category I found myself in agreement with some of the puppy nominations (and intend to vote with them) was movies.
Concerning racism in America: The only way to deal with racism is to point it out and stand up to it. To be silent and pretend it doesn’t exist is what got the mess so hot in the first place.
Both Correia and Torgerson have made racist and sexist statements by complaining that the prizes POC and women have achieved are due to some imagined “affirmative action”. So when a white man wins, it’s quality. When a black woman wins it’s “affirmative action”.
Denying even the possibilty that those winners were simply better is playbook racism and sexism.
And no, I doesn’t matter who Torgerson is married to or if Correia is latino. This right there was a racist charge to make.
Calling someone a racist, isn’t a slur. It refers to specific political actions and my point is, they said racist things and they never took them back.
The whole conspiracy theory SP is based on has already bean prooven wrong by the nominations. They showed clearly that “the other side”, whatever that might be, was not organized, which is why 300-350 votes were enough to take over the whole nomination process.
I do believe that there is a liberal majority in Sci-Fi and publishing in general. Eric Flint and GRRM wrote quite accurate pieces about this.
But a majority is not a secret cabal. And it never has been a majority that excluded the opposition as the numerous conservative Hugo winners and nominees clearly showcase.
If you disagree with this, can you do me another first and name deserving books in a specific year that were missed over worse winners? I guess no one agrees always with the Hugo choice, I certainly don’t. But until the puppy noms came along, I felt that in general deserving books got the nominations. I can honestly say, that I liked most of those I read very well. From the other side of the planet and though I have never been to a Worldcon. No secret cabal involved.
So please tell me, why you seem to believe that my tastes are so ludicrous that it is impossible to you that a majority of people in sci-Fi and fantasy simply and honestly share them?
@Wild ape: Oh forgot that one:
“How many neo-nazis win Austria would do the same?”
Oh, many! They are not a pricipled lot, they will do just about anything to advance their cause.
The candidate of the neo-nazi political arm is putting up billboards in serbic, because he knows that he can rile up those immigrants against other (muslim) groups of immigrants.
“As a revenge tactic he is now bringing in hate groups (GG) to a relatively small community and aggitates people who feel marginalized within this community, because they are a minority in a democratic society (sad puppies).”
Conservatives are hardly a minority in America unless you want to count them as represented by our traditional news media. Liberals however are a highly vocal minority here. This source is based on Gallop poll numbers and comes from an American left of center news source.
However perception of the mainstream media is that the liberals think our media is unbias and balanced and trust worthy:
And this source here shows that the overwhelming majority of journalists are liberal.
I’d also say that in publication there far more liberals than conservatives involved in publication especially in the big publication firms. Kindly point out the balance in Tor editors for me please. The SJWs rail at the lack of a females at the top of the editing staff. NK Jemisin said that women are placed in low and middle positions but “once you get high it is all sausage fest”. Perhaps in Austria the media is more evenly distributed (I don’t know) but then from an American perspective there isn’t much difference in your left and right and our Democrats, liberal as they are, would still be considered right wing or central in ideology by comparison. I suggest that is why they look reasonable to most Europeans.
At last someone is talking about specifics and identifying a misconception. I think your comment about “Skin Game” is a worthy topic of discussion that we should be hashing out and not voting along SJW/Sad Puppy lines.
I too am a fan of the Dresden Files and I agree that Skin Game is not nearly as sharp and fresh as the earlier novels. I agree that the novels have been perhaps rehashes of earlier successful stories so our perceptions are similar.
I think that you confuse Hugo nomination versus Hugo award levels. I certainly stand by my vote that Skin Game deserves a nomination. Butcher put urban fantasy on the map as far as I’m concerned and was revolutionary in his work. I think he stacks up—but this is my opinion which is worth as much as yours.
Authors have to eat and I don’t begrudge a writer from not trying to end the gravy train and skip onto a new storyline. Ann McCaffery made the wonderful Pern series which had similar highs and lows as the Dresden files. Whereas her Pern earned the Hugo early in the series she also had a bunch of thirsty fantasy and dragon fans going into it. Butcher did not have a bunch of urban fantasy fans and so his series had to create those fans first. That is a much harder hill to climb.
My thinking about the voting for the Novel category was difficult. It was more of a who do I leave out. For every book that I chose there were several that I had to put behind. To say that I did otherwise is unfair and diminishes my honor and integrity I think. I gave all writers and even shake I think. I did not sit there and ask myself which one would Rush Limbaugh choose? Or divide my piles of books to separate the “sausage fest” from the others as NK Jemisin does (kinda makes her misandrist and sexist don’t ya think). At no time was it possible nor did I even bother to wonder what religion, culture, or race the authors were. Can the SJWs say the same? They argue that that should be the FIRST thing to be considered.
Now how Skin Game stacks up to the rest of the Hugo nominees has been very difficult and I haven’t made up my mind yet. I have read Leckie’s military short stories and thought they were good and bought the first in her series hoping to get a good ride from the purchase. I thought it was dull and the concept had been handled better by other authors much better. Her book that gained the nomination and the Nebula wasn’t any better. I did like Anderson’s Dark Between the Stars but Cixin Lui’s book was better. John recommended The Goblin Emperor and dang me again if he wasn’t right. So for the final award I’m in quite a pickle! I am not sure who I will vote for but I can say that my fairness and attitude about Tor books tempts me to slam them and dismiss them for the bullies and punks that their editors are. I won’t because I have more empathy for the writers than I do for politics. Sadly, SJWs place their politics first. They have their liberal heads stuck so far up their asses that to them everything looks like the stuff they are smelling. They can award GRRM one minute and when it suits them harangue him for being a sexist.
“Concerning racism in America: The only way to deal with racism is to point it out and stand up to it. To be silent and pretend it doesn’t exist is what got the mess so hot in the first place.”
Yessir, I agree. I’m there and I do!
“Both Correia and Torgerson have made racist and sexist statements by complaining that the prizes POC and women have achieved are due to some imagined “affirmative action”. So when a white man wins, it’s quality. When a black woman wins it’s “affirmative action”. ”
Here is where you are wrong Corwin. Criticism is not racism. Nowhere have the persons been demeaned or diminished in those comments. They are talking about the awards process and describing their perception of the liberal mindset and thinking of the SJWs. When you look at the radical thoughts of NK Jemisin they practically mirror Beale’s. Whereas Jemisin views things in terms of whether or not someone has a penis, Beale has his own set of bias. Sorry—your bias about Sad Puppies proves my point. I suggest that you are thinking under a false paradigm that excludes your thinking.
Now you and I can both like Skin Game and we can agree that it is a rehash of his earlier successes. I have shown you my thinking process and the difference between my thinking of a nomination and an award. How is Skin Game not deserving of a Hugo nomination? What is your thinking process?
“But a majority is not a secret cabal. And it never has been a majority that excluded the opposition as the numerous conservative Hugo winners and nominees clearly showcase.”
Thank you for your honesty about the majority of publishing being left wing. I think I can explain why the Sad Puppy perception of Hugo voting and cabals might be off. Also I will agree that a small voting block of 200-350 votes can greatly impact the Hugo vote.
First off there are election models that can be used to prove our point correct. Those same voting populations can be explained both Sad Puppy and liberal publishing points as being correct. Who is invested in the Hugo awards enough to vote for them? We don’t have a poll but I would speculate that the ones who vote for the Hugo are sci-fi/fantasy fans, publishers of sci-fi/fantasy, and the authors of these books. At $40 you can see that that might drop out the casual fan which leaves more of the hardcore sci-fi/fanstasy fans and writer partisans. The bulk of that voting is probably publishing and the writers. I think this would explain the perceived “left wing bias” that the Puppies claim and mask the “majority-think-like-us” perception of the liberal publishing and translating the Hugo voting public as a true representation of the population as a whole. In any case getting more people to vote in the process will cure this. I for one welcome it.
“Do the nomination numbers. Really, they are up on file770 somewhere.”
Are you kidding me? Post it and I’ll discuss it. That isn’t offering proof. Give me a link.
“Calling someone a racist, isn’t a slur. It refers to specific political actions and my point is, they said racist things and they never took them back.”
I STRONGLY DISAGREE. The entomology of the word stems from describing Nazi thinking. The term is defined by dictionary.com as;” a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one’s own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.”
“Denying even the possibilty that those winners were simply better is playbook racism and sexism.”
No. It is a matter of opinion that they are discussing. Human beings are going to have differences of opinion. Criticism does not equate to sexism or racism. If by your thinking a man has a disagreement with a woman it is sexism. If a white man has a difference of opinion than a non-white man equates to racism by your logic. Sorry that is not logical or rational. If I offended you with my “racist” and “sexist” statements remember that Hitler’s mother was a Austrian. Perhaps I need your definition of a racist and sexist in order to deliver my point.
“I guess no one agrees always with the Hugo choice, I certainly don’t.”
Exactly my thinking too. In a free society we must allow for opinions both fair and foul. Civility, and an ethic of fairness make free society work. In your response to your last post I would say that the SJWs are more of a model of neo-Nazi thinking and that they just as low. Have you read the character assassination hit piece made on the Sad Puppy leaders? If so I will gladly post the link. Show me where the Sad Puppies have done this. Explain Beale’s choice and your thinking on this. No sir, the SJWs are the villains and neo-Nazis here and not the Sad Puppies.
And Corwin–you are starting to grow on me. I just need to shave off a little of your liberal bigotry a bit.
[…] of that very same false narrative. What did he get for his trouble? The head of the publisher was attacked by people who are so thoroughly married to the narrative, almost nothing will dissuade them from […]
“Conservatives are hardly a minority in America”
I completely agree. However, we are not talking about the general American public here. We are talking about the English speaking Sci-Fi and Fantasy readership aka the Hugo electorate.
We already agree that authors and publishers, which are in the end, the most hardcore fans and the core of Worldcon attendants, are mostly liberals. It’s harder to estimate the views of their readership, but there are plenty of statistics showing that intellectuals tend strongly towards the left. And you need to read a lot to be really interested in the Hugos enough to read enough new books and short stories to pass a complete nomination ballot.
This is why I think it is safe to say that within the Hugo electorate conservatives simply are a minority, while this is not true for the general electorate in the US.
“I’d also say that in publication there far more liberals than conservatives involved in publication especially in the big publication firms”
Yes, I agree. And since this is a primarily a literature award, mostly organized by publishers, authors and fans of their literature. Which is why I don’t doubt that among this audience liberals simply are a majority.
“Perhaps in Austria the media is more evenly distributed (I don’t know) but then from an American perspective there isn’t much difference in your left and right and our Democrats, liberal as they are, would still be considered right wing or central in ideology by comparison. I suggest that is why they look reasonable to most Europeans.”
Our media is also largely controlled by men. And then there are fairly few and small truly liberal publications. The Falter would be an example, which is the city newspaper of Vienna.
To understand the differences between the US and European parties you need to make a stronger distinction between economic stance (taxes, public healthcare, solcial systems) and issues of the society (equality of the sexes, abortion, gay marriage, division of church and state, gun laws…). I tend to say from the purely economic viewpoint you are right and our parties are basically all to the left of the republicans. Things like public healthcare are a duh question in Europe.
Our economically right parties are basically where the Democrats are in the US.
(Me personally, I do not care much about economical left and right. Both things work for me (or not). I make enough money to either pay high taxes and get a good social system or keep the money to myself and pay privately for my social security. The only thing I care about is corruption. And unfortunately both sides of the spectrum are corrupt. The left tends to pocket tax payer money and the right tends to pocket corporate money and sell legislation.
The least corrupt systems I know are on the left side in the Scandinavian countries, but sadly a lot of left leaning countries and all right leaning countries are massively addled by corruption.)
Considering the society issues, we basically have the same spectrum as the US does. Ultra-conservative, anti-gay, anti.-women, anti-environment parties to ultra-liberal, pro-women, pro-environment parties. Only that since we have mostly different voting systems, smaller parties also make it into parliament.
In the US economical small state ideology goes with conservative ideology on society issues. Here we also have parties ( a small party in this case) who advocate small state and complete liberalism in society questions (pro-abortion, pro gay marriage), while we also have an ultraconservative religious party that still advocates public healthcare.
(Me personally, on society matters I am a lefty, no doubt about it. But I did for example vote for the party, who was basically republican on economics but completely liberal in society matters.)
I don’t know, if the excurse was useful for our discussion, but I thought it might be interesting for you.
“At last someone is talking about specifics and identifying a misconception. I think your comment about “Skin Game” is a worthy topic of discussion that we should be hashing out and not voting along SJW/Sad Puppy lines.”
Yay, actual literature discussion!
“I think that you confuse Hugo nomination versus Hugo award levels. I certainly stand by my vote that Skin Game deserves a nomination.”
I disagree here. Had Kloos not graciously withdrawn, The three body problem would have been pushed off the ballot entirely, which in my opinion would have been a massive loss. I am currently reading it and find it very thought provoking and to be honest, as much as I like my chum Harry, more deserving of a Hugo.
Also the Nebula winner by Jeff Vandermeer was pushed completely off the ballot and I have not read that one yet but I hear great things about it. Jo Walton had a novel out last year (My real children) which I loved almost as much as Among Others. So I tend to think that even for nominations there were better books up this year.
“Butcher put urban fantasy on the map as far as I’m concerned and was revolutionary in his work.”
Ok, as far as you are concerned, but he hardly invented urban fantasy. To me it was more Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere (and he was also not the first) and today my favorite is Ben Aaronovitch.
“I think he stacks up—but this is my opinion which is worth as much as yours.”
Absolutely. But you see that this is a topic where multiple opinions are clearly possible. And the opinion that Butcher was not grievously slighted but that there are simply better books around is also valid. No secret cabal needed.
“Butcher did not have a bunch of urban fantasy fans and so his series had to create those fans first. That is a much harder hill to climb. “
I’d contest that. By the time he was starting out he was like most authors also standing on the shoulders of giants. Although I’d say that they came also heavily from TV-influences such as Buffy, Angel and the old beauty and the beast show.
“At no time was it possible nor did I even bother to wonder what religion, culture, or race the authors were. Can the SJWs say the same?”
Well, I am hesitant to take up the SJW mantle. To me it is a derogatory term introduced by Gamer Gate to blanket accuse their opposition. I do oppose Sad Puppies, but what constitutes a SJW seems to change on a daily basis (and even within this one post of yours). For example I do not share the beef some people have with GRRM because of the GoT TV show. And these people also get labeled SJW.
This is the problem when you label “the outside” of your group as another homogenous group. It is not.
I can speak only for me and I usually don’t care where an author comes from or what sex or religion they have. So if I am a SJW then I can say, we don’t care. Or am I not a SJW anymore if I don’t care?
Moving goal posts.
“They argue that that should be the FIRST thing to be considered.”
There it is, the mysterious “they”. Please clarify who? I don’t think GRRM or Eric Flint, or even David Gerrold did that, and they were labeled SJWs during this debate. I certainly don’t argue that it should be the first thing considered.
But I do have a taste for different and new ideas. The idea of keeping my reading to the same “nutty nuggets” every day sounds like a punishment to me. I love books that open the mind. It’s why I loved “My real Children”, why I loved Ellen Kushner’s Swordspoint books, why I love Lois Bujold, why I love Roger Zelazny so much that I picked his hero’s name as my avatar.
Again, I would like to repeat my question, why simply liking books that are not conservative needs to be inspired by a secret conspiracy to be even plausible?
And you are the one, who said above that you threw away Gerrold’s books because of his politics. I smashed heads once with Bill Willingham, the massively conservative author of Fables (which you could call message fiction without much trouble), whom I now consider an impolite douchebag. But his comics are still good and they are still save in my shelf.
Politics was always a factor, human nature, but no one before the puppies made it into such a central and all defining factor. I am firmly a non-puppy and so are the folk with whom I discuss my reading and nobody has ever proposed to me to conider politics FIRST.
So where is the hard proof for this myth? There is plenty of proof of politics first from the other side (e.g. see Wright’s Korra rant)
“So for the final award I’m in quite a pickle! I am not sure who I will vote for but I can say that my fairness and attitude about Tor books tempts me to slam them and dismiss them for the bullies and punks that their editors are. I won’t because I have more empathy for the writers than I do for politics.”
Boycotting Tor would leave you with Butcher and Lecki. Which you both said are not remarkebly worthy.
Me, I’m still torn between Ancillary Sword and The Goblin Emperor. I liked them both a bit better than Three Body Problem (which is very good too) and I bounced right of The Dark between the Stars, I gave it a 100 pages, but it just didn’t do anything for me.
“Sadly, SJWs place their politics first.”
So you say. But I have yet to meet those types. So far I have only met them in puppy hate fantasies about what their opponent looks like.
“They can award GRRM one minute and when it suits them harangue him for being a sexist.”
Maybe because they are not the same people? Or because they can agree with a person on one thing and disagree on another? I had a few heated discussions with GRRM back in the day about the Diana Gabaldon kerfuffle. I still only have the highest respect for the man and think he is spot on in the puppy-wars.
“Criticism is not racism.”
No, but that was not criticism, it was prejudice. Tastes in literature are always subjective and to claim that another person can’t possibly like something you don’t like and must thereby only like it to affirm the author’s race or gender, is …racism!
“Nowhere have the persons been demeaned or diminished in those comments.”
Yes they have. To say “oh, you only won because you are a black woman” is demeaning. Correia and Torgerson have been careful not name concrete examples and hide behind blanket statements, so that they do not have to discuss individual works, but the demeaning nature of the statement stays the same.
“They are talking about the awards process and describing their perception of the liberal mindset and thinking of the SJWs.”
Yes, they describe their perception of the imaginary thought process of an imaginary enemy. That other people like other things than they do, doesn’t even occur to them. I have NEVER read a book and thought, “oh I really love that, but it is so heteronormative and anti-socialist and therefore I must forbid myself from liking it”.
I do have read stuff though, where I was kicked out of the story because it was preachy and because I thought the characterization was laughably bad because of the authors obvious prejudice (e.g. the Gor books). But then I really honest to god, hated that book. Should I say, I liked it, so I don’t slight author’s hate for women?
“When you look at the radical thoughts of NK Jemisin they practically mirror Beale’s.”
I am not very familiar with Jemisin’s words. I read one book by her (was ok, nothing too special) and have seen some quotes thrown around. Please give me the concrete words of hers you are referring to, so I can answer?
“Sorry—your bias about Sad Puppies proves my point. I suggest that you are thinking under a false paradigm that excludes your thinking.”
Coming from someone, who is throwing around blanket accusations at an imaginary group of enemies that doesn’t even self identify as that one group.
“Now you and I can both like Skin Game and we can agree that it is a rehash of his earlier successes. I have shown you my thinking process and the difference between my thinking of a nomination and an award. How is Skin Game not deserving of a Hugo nomination? What is your thinking process?”
Ok, returning to Skin game, because there was again politics in the middle: Like I said above. I think there were in my opinion way more nom deserving books in 2014:
My real Children, The Three Body Problem, Southern Reach (presumably, I have to read that one yet), The Martian (that had a problem though, previously published online, or something), Half a king, The Slow Regard of Silent Things (novella, maybe, still a grievous slight to push that off any ballot).
That is my thought process.
“Thank you for your honesty about the majority of publishing being left wing. I think I can explain why the Sad Puppy perception of Hugo voting and cabals might be off. Also I will agree that a small voting block of 200-350 votes can greatly impact the Hugo vote.
First off there are election models that can be used to prove our point correct. Those same voting populations can be explained both Sad Puppy and liberal publishing points as being correct. Who is invested in the Hugo awards enough to vote for them? We don’t have a poll but I would speculate that the ones who vote for the Hugo are sci-fi/fantasy fans, publishers of sci-fi/fantasy, and the authors of these books. At $40 you can see that that might drop out the casual fan which leaves more of the hardcore sci-fi/fanstasy fans and writer partisans. The bulk of that voting is probably publishing and the writers.”
Yes, we absolutely agree (I can’t believe it).
“I think this would explain the perceived “left wing bias” that the Puppies claim and mask the “majority-think-like-us” perception of the liberal publishing and translating the Hugo voting public as a true representation of the population as a whole.”
So, this right there is were out perceptions differ. It is not a “bias” if the majority of an electorate thinks differently than the general US public. Hugo voters are a very small bookish subset of (mostly US but actually international) voters.
And why would the Hugo represent the US public? It represents readers (and writers and publishers). It is not a conspiracy against democrats that if you poll within the NRA, you will likely find more republicans than you will find in the general electorate. Why would it be a secret cabal here?
“In any case getting more people to vote in the process will cure this. I for one welcome it.”
To me it depends. I think more reading voters are good. But every voter who is not actually a reader is one to many. This is a literature award, not a political award, if people, who have not read the nominated books start to vote it will go down the drain.
I do think that the majority of Sad Puppies are readers. With RP I’m not so sure. There are many posts that are very tell tale about people who are just voting for politics and without reading the books.
I welcome every reader to the voting pool ( I am new myself) but those who don’t read the books should not vote. Do you agree? Or do you think politics need to go before the books?
“Are you kidding me? Post it and I’ll discuss it. That isn
’t offering proof Give me a link.”
Here is the link and also a bit of analysis on a few categories:
This is the list for best novel:
Best Novel (1827 nominating ballots, 587 entries, range 212-387)
• Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie (Orbit US; Orbit UK)
• The Dark Between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)
• The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
• Skin Game by Jim Butcher (Roc Books)
• The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)
Since the Three-Body Problem was added for a drop out, we know that it must have had 212 votes. The difference between this and the book getting the most votes are 175 votes. If we assume that the most nominated book, is one of the puppies, we know that their part in the electorate lies between 175 and 387 votes. I’m a fan of worst case scenarios, so let’s go with the maximum number 387.
The other 1440 voters were split between 587 entries (way more than I thought). That illustrates how powerful block voting really is. 21% (again going with the worst case) of the electorate can easily throw over the apple cart.
Numberwise Best Novella is a very interesting Slate, because it was purely puppy dominated and has fewer nomination ballots.
Best Novella (1083 nominating ballots, 201 entries, range 145-338)
Big Boys Don’t Cry by Tom Kratman (Castalia House)
“Flow” by Arlan Andrews, Sr. (Analog, Nov 2014)
One Bright Star to Guide Them by John C. Wright (Castalia House)
“Pale Realms of Shade” by John C. Wright (The Book of Feasts & Seasons, Castalia House)
“The Plural of Helen of Troy by John C. Wright (City Beyond Time: Tales of the Fall of Metachronopolis, Castalia House)
The maximum puppy turnout of 338 here translates to 31% of the electorate. All of these stories were on the rabid puppy slate, while only three were also nominated by the sad puppies:
Flow – Arlan Andrews Sr. – Analog magazine November 2014
One Bright Star to Guide Them – John C. Wright – Castalia House
Big Boys Don’t Cry – Tom Kratman – Castalia House
It figures that the stories of the combined slates have the most nominations, but it also means that the rabid puppies alone command at least 145 votes. The remaining 69% of the electorate split their vote between 201 entries.
I think the sheer numbers of nominees illustrate that the other side never organized. The conspiracy theory is humbug.
“I STRONGLY DISAGREE. The entomology of the word stems from describing Nazi thinking. The term is defined by dictionary.com as;” a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one’s own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.” “
Yes. And that isn’t a slur. It is a description of someone’s politics. I’m not a big fan of PC. If someone says racist stuff, they should be called a racist. There is no use in pussyfooting around it. Politics are not like color of skin or sex. You chose them and they come with responsibility.
“No. It is a matter of opinion that they are discussing. Human beings are going to have differences of opinion. Criticism does not equate to sexism or racism. “
Again, this is not criticism. This is denying even the possibility that the group in question won by merit.
“If by your thinking a man has a disagreement with a woman it is sexism.”
No. If he says, she can’t possibly be right, because she is woman, that IS sexism.
“If a white man has a difference of opinion than a non-white man equates to racism by your logic. ”
“Sorry that is not logical or rational.”
That is because it is your logic not mine.
“If I offended you with my “racist” and “sexist” statements remember that Hitler’s mother was a Austrian.”
Uhm, not sure what to do with that one. You have in my opinion defended racists and sexists, but have not made racist or sexist statements yourself.
Hitler was an Austrian. He was born in Austria and both his parents were Austrian.
It is a bit of a truth about Austrians though that we are very good at making everybody believe that Beethoven was Austrian and Hitler was German. I attempt not to do that though. I stand by the darkness in my countries history and I’ve had family on the death trains and among the people who drove them.
So what exactly did you want to tell me by that last statement?
“Perhaps I need your definition of a racist and sexist in order to deliver my point.”
Pretty much your definition from above:
“a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one’s own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.”
You exchange race for gender and you have my definition of sexist.
I also do think that people very often make sexist and racist assumptions without consciously subscribing to the doctrine. It’s human nature to divide groups in us and them. But I don’t think it is a particularly great part of human nature and that adult people should be self reflective about their prejudice.
“Civility, and an ethic of fairness make free society work. In your response to your last post I would say that the SJWs are more of a model of neo-Nazi thinking and that they just as low.”
So you say, civility and ethnic fairness make a free society work and then you go on calling people, who as far as I can see, are still united only by the fact that they disagree with you, neo-nazis. Just no.
“Have you read the character assassination hit piece made on the Sad Puppy leaders? If so I will gladly post the link. Show me where the Sad Puppies have done this. Explain Beale’s choice and your thinking on this.”
Don’t know what you are referring to? Link please.
“No sir, the SJWs are the villains and neo-Nazis here and not the Sad Puppies.”
And who the hell are these SJWs now? Am I a SJW?
“And Corwin–you are starting to grow on me. I just need to shave off a little of your liberal bigotry a bit.”
By slamming me with bigotry towards people who disagree with you?
Corwin—thank you for talking about yourself and your thinking because it has helped me to understand you and hopefully communicate more effectively. I think of you as a serious and intelligent individual who rationally assess what he processes. I see your viewpoint as truly libertarian and you are by no means an SJW. SJWs don’t debate. If you disagree with them they destroy you. You seem to be or attempt to be fair minded. This debate can work even though it is suffering from spread. I’ve written four pages so far in response and I’m attempting to condense them. Let me put out some observations with talking points so that we can concentrate our discussion on the topics that deserve our attention most.
1. Voting—-I see nothing wrong with your approach to voting. We differ in choice but I think you are fair in your approach. You accused me of not reading all the selections and I assure you that I will read them even if they are Tor selections. In fact, I have no problem voting for a Tor candidate this year. I think it is my duty to read the selection before I make my vote. We both agree that the more informed readers who vote will benefit fandom.
2. Diversity in fiction—-SJWs are big on diversity and so am I. We approach it differently and view it differently. Whereas we both agree that it benefits fandom to have a wide open field. Diversity in fiction is seen as a variety of writers from different cultures, genders, and political viewpoints. In my life experiences I have lived in Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Korea. Seeing different cultures has broadened and enriched my life, not diminished it and I had that same sense of wonder that I do when I read about an alien world or a fantasy setting. The difference is traveling is a physical experience and reading is a mental adventure. I see diversity as a good experience and not an evil thing. SJWs see diversity as a measurement of tolerance and in doing so not all cultures and viewpoints are welcome. Christianity, conservatism, and pretty much traditional American, or white they feel should be surplanted by non Christian, non conservative, non white etc. That is why the Sad Puppies are not hypocritical to their values or trying to camouflage or shield themselves from criticism of the choices they like.
3. Secret cabal of Hugo voting—Correia is not the best spokesman at times and I think he gets things wrong. I think Correia has a misperception that I can explain. I used his word of cabal when I should be saying campaigning. I think I can illustrate how this occurs. Also, at first the talk was that there was no secret campaigning. Here are GRRMs words on the subject:
“And yes, I have done all this myself. Mentioned my own work, drawn up recommended reading lists, blogged passionately about people I thought deserved a nomination. I am not condemning the practice, just reporting on it. It always made me feel awkward, but like many of my friends, I knew that if I refrained and then missed the ballot by a few votes, I would be kicking myself. I’d sooner see the practice die out. But until it does, you have to play the game.” He goes on to say that some groups do it more and better than others like Dr. Who fans (Phil Sandifer comes to my mind) And Philip Sandifer PhD had the gall to say this:” None of this, of course, is actually evidence that Torgersen and Beale collaborated on their slates, but given that the argument that a right-wing takeover of the Hugos was necessary is predicated in part on the baseless claim that left-wing writers privately conspired to create nominating slates, it hardly seems out of line to point out.”
a. This is what I think happened and I’ll use a real life example to show how it works. When you look at it from a business perspective and not a fan’s perspective it makes sense. In news media Fox News is the only right wing news branch. CNN, ABC, NBC, etc are all left wing leaning. Fox has a 60% right wing-40% liberal population of journalists while CNN, ABC, NBC, etc have a 10% right wing and 90% liberal population. When CNN numbers tank Fox news soaks them up. All of the left news media view Fox as a pariah and competitor so they gang up on Fox. It makes business sense to try and discredit and drive out Fox. That is why you will see them as united.
b. Sandifer is a big Dr. Who fan and has campaigned for Dr. Who. GRRM even points out the good campaigners: “Of course, not everyone was equally good at self-promotion. Certain subfandoms were better organized than others (the DOCTOR WHO fans, for instance)”. So here are the Sad Puppies who are doing the same thing that Sandifer does. I think it explains Sandifer’s anger. Then you have Torgerson who worked with Tor and you are able to explain the venom directed at him. Baen books and Tor have gone at it from time to time but I think this is due to Baen’s success over the last few years and Tor seems to have faded. I suggest that the door is closed at Tor but open in other markets and Baen has a lot of conservative writers.
4. Gatekeepers—–A big problem that I’m trying to illustrate is gatekeeping. If you have strong and partisan liberals who are gatekeepers for fiction, college, and media then you will get a liberal bias. Am I to believe that there isn’t a bias at Tor or in the Hugos? Sandifer describes his profession, he is a professor.
“Which is, as it happens, terribly silly. Academia is not a meritocracy. It’s a lottery, in which the grand prize – a tenure track position – is dangled over the heads of everybody so that we agree to work for the appalling wages that adjunct faculty get…. Meanwhile, the odds on tenure track appointments are astonishingly grim. It’s not unusual for a job to get five hundred applicants. There were, last year, maybe two dozen jobs in my field.”
I’d say that the same holds true for a writer landing a book publication. A publisher might have a hundred good stories and only 10 spots to fill. I agree that when I read a book that I enjoy I don’t say, “I cannot love this book because it is has a liberal viewpoint.” By the way Corwin, that was a brilliant illustration. But if you have an imbalanced gatekeeping system then do you not have an imbalanced view? What is so toxic, so reprehensible about conservative philosophy that warrants our exclusion from your inclusive circle of acceptance? What is tolerant about your intolerance of us? And your crack about intellectuals tend to be left thinking is a ridiculous notion. Please enlighten me how one’s IQ increases with a political thought. Did Poland when it gave up communism see a drop in its national IQ levels when it moved to the right? Are Americans the dumbest people on the planet because they are right of thinking from the European Union and the communists? I think professor Sandifer who spoke about his profession is closer to the truth. The perception is that professors are smart and everyone knows the colleges are chocked full of them. Please tell me that you don’t hold the same conclusion that conservatives are not as creative as liberals because most editors and writers are left thinking. Where is the logic in that?
I have tried to edit my humor because I don’t think it translates well and it might have offended you. Please don’t confuse my snark with contempt for you. I’ve enjoyed your debate and I have respect for you sir.
I wrote about 4 pages so here is what I skipped.
1. Clarification about ethic versus ethnic.
2. links to character assassination
3. commentary about your post to file 770
4. Clarification about your response to Hitler.
5. Vox Day
If any of those interest you I’ll post my comment.
“I stand by the darkness in my countries history and I’ve had family on the death trains and among the people who drove them.
So what exactly did you want to tell me by that last statement?”
Only that I get weary of defending Beale and being held accountable for what he says and his opinions. Don’t you feel the same way every time you try to discuss a point and someone brings Hitler up in order to dismiss what you say? I have Native American ancestry and my history has its own dark history. Like you I’ve had similar thoughts of my ancestors who drove people on the Trail of Tears and ancestors who suffered and died on that Trail of Tears too. I find it vulgar and myopic to focus on Hitler and completely dismiss all the wonderful things that the Austrians that brought to this world as much as the SJWs try to diminish me, my country, and my ancestry. It is not justified.
I agree that our debate needed condensing. There are however a few points I’d like to get back into focus.
1) Who are the SJWs?
“SJWs don’t debate. If you disagree with them they destroy you.”
So far the only person in this attempting to destroy other people is Beale. As you don’t seem to mean him and apparently not all non-puppies in general, I’d really like you to name concrete examples.
“You accused me of not reading all the selections and I assure you that I will read them even if they are Tor selections. In fact, I have no problem voting for a Tor candidate this year. I think it is my duty to read the selection before I make my vote. We both agree that the more informed readers who vote will benefit fandom.”
I’d like to point out that I did not accuse you of not reading the nominations. I do have my suspicions about a significant portion of RP though. We can agree that more readers are good but can we also agree that non-readers who are just here for the politics are bad? Even if it is your politics?
3) Diversity in fiction
You claim that Christianity and traditional American values are no longer welcome in fiction.
Sorry, but I simply don’t see that. Torgerson, Correia, Wright…they have all gotten published. Card is published. Simmons. There are plenty of conservative writers around. Yes, the field is broader now, but the conservatives never disappeared and no one tried to keep them out as Torgerson’s and Correia’s Hugo nominations proof.
I have the impression that the sad puppies feel discriminated the second their brand of fiction does not dominate everything.
You cited GRRM here but you did forget to cite how he goes on. He thinks that none of these individual campaigns compare to what the puppies did. Other campaigns are about promoting fiction they love, not about pushing everything that does not politically align with you off the ballot.
This is why I said the way to heal the community, would be for the puppies to drop the politics and make it about their love for specific books.
Dr. Who fans organized for the love of their show, not “to stick it to the gun-lobby” or something.
I do agree with Martin and also Sandifer that there was no left wing conspiracy at work, simply people who loved specific stories.
“a. This is what I think happened and I’ll use a real life example to show how it works. When you look at it from a business perspective and not a fan’s perspective it makes sense. In news media Fox News is the only right wing news branch. CNN, ABC, NBC, etc are all left wing leaning. Fox has a 60% right wing-40% liberal population of journalists while CNN, ABC, NBC, etc have a 10% right wing and 90% liberal population. When CNN numbers tank Fox news soaks them up. All of the left news media view Fox as a pariah and competitor so they gang up on Fox. It makes business sense to try and discredit and drive out Fox. That is why you will see them as united.”
I don’t watch that many US news because they lack international coverage, but I know FOX news and they have an extremely bad relationship with facts. That has nothing to do with left and right. If you report falsehoods then that is bad journalism. And I certainly don’t think they are conspired against. The fact that they are still around, even though the quality of their reporting is abysmally low tempts me more to believe that there is a conspiracy backing them up.
“A big problem that I’m trying to illustrate is gatekeeping. If you have strong and partisan liberals who are gatekeepers for fiction, college, and media then you will get a liberal bias.”
I simply have not the impression that this holds up in the numbers. Colleges, publishers, media, they all want to make money and they act accordingly. I really feel that this gatekeeper business is mostly paranoia, brought to full bloom by conservatives who mostly live within an opinion bubble and then find that the world is much bigger and more diverse than they thought and that they only own a small corner of it, not “basically everything” as they thought. And that makes them feel disenfranchised.
They want power that is disproportional to their actual size and that doesn’t work in a democracy.
“What is so toxic, so reprehensible about conservative philosophy that warrants our exclusion from your
inclusive circle of acceptance?”
I don’t think that conservative philosophy in general warrants exclusion. I do think though that racism, sexism and homophobia warrant exclusion (because they in turn advocate the exclusion of groups that (contrary to their discriminators) have not chosen to be within that group). And I do think that conservatism has a bad track record dealing with the ugly stuff amongst its own and choses to feel discriminated by anyone who points that out.
Maybe let’s stick to the Hugo discourse, so we don’t get sidetracked too much. Here we get back to Beale. We both agree at least roughly that he has said racist and sexist stuff en masse. The sad puppies always say “oh, but he is not our responsibility”, yet as the numbers I showed you last post illustrate, the sad puppies were successful because of Beale’s support.
You talk about gatekeeping and how conservatives have to fear for the jobs in the publishing industry. Yet the only person trying to get anyone else fired is Beale. And you apparently support this. You also want Gallo fired for her words.
When you have profited as much as you have from Beale and support him in so many key issues then his racism, sexism and homophobia do become your problem at some point.
In my mind, if the puppies were a respectable and honorable group of people, they would confront Beale. They would stand up to him and say: “Hey, quit using our name to enforce your hateful trolling.” You say, you want to diversify the Hugos, he says, he wants to destroy them and he’s using sad puppies to do it. The sad puppies should be the first to oppose him, yet they just sit back and let him do their dirty work.
“Don’t you feel the same way every time you try to discuss a point and someone brings Hitler up in order to dismiss what you say?”
Which is why, when someone brings Hitler up, I simply face the issue. It’s not that hard, since I do stand up to today’s neo-nazi parties in Austria. I suggest the sad puppies do the same and start to face the issue of their connection with Beale and his acts.
“And your crack about intellectuals tend to be left thinking is a ridiculous notion.”
It’s not a “notion” at all. It’s simply the numbers. Look at the statistics done about the demographics of readers:
That’s not to say, that conservatives don’t read or that IQ drops with conservatism but it shows the overall numbers and among the segment of readers republicans are not as strongly represented as in the general population. Same as among the segment of gun owners democrats are not as strongly represented as in the general population. Do you also think that it is “gatekeepers” that keep democrats from being equally interested in guns?
Those are the numbers. It is not a conspiracy.
1) Who are the SJWs?
There are many types. I suppose I accept a combination of these two:
The bottom line is that they are bent on destroying those that disagree with them and they have strong influence in many places.
“We can agree that more readers are good but can we also agree that non-readers who are just here for the politics are bad? Even if it is your politics?”
Absolutely. I agree. Keep in mind that enforcing this is impossible. I think civility towards the Sad and Rabid Puppies might go a long way. Have you read Vox Day’s blog? I think if his audience is a sample then they do read them or at least attempt to like you and I. I haven’t seen that on Monster Hunter Nation but then….the Sad Puppy list was diverse. You still haven’t commented about my comparison. Even the Sad and Rabid Puppy lists were more diverse than last years Hugo winners. For the likes of Irene Gallo, Sandifer, and Patrick Nielsen-Hayden and all their talk they sure came up with a white white white male male male bunch. And if you look at the number of conservative writers versus the liberals writers who were awarded the bias against conservatives is staggering. I think the only thing you can prove is that the Sad Puppies are willing to read anything—conservative or liberal—–but the SJWs can’t seem to do it or accept it and they actively stand against it.
3) Diversity in fiction
“You claim that Christianity and traditional American values are no longer welcome in fiction…..I have the impression that the sad puppies feel discriminated the second their brand of fiction does not dominate everything.”
Hmm, this one is a tough one to navigate. From the Puppy perspective they are seeing bias directed against conservative values. They are responding to comments like this from Patrick or Theresa Nielsen-Hayden:
“Those of us who love SF and love fandom know in our hearts that the Hugo is ours. One of the most upsetting things about the Sad Puppy campaigns is that they are saying the Hugo shouldn’t belong to all of us, it should belong to them.” And “The Hugos don’t belong to the set of all people who red the genre; they belong to the worldcon, and the people who attend and/or support it. The set of all people who read SF can start their own award.”
This is polar opposite from what Worldcon is saying. Their FAQ defines exactly who the award is determined by: “The awards are run by and voted on by fans.” If Worldcon wants to change who determines the awards from ALL OF FANDOM to whatever slithering thoughts Patrick Neilson-Hayden determines to be appropriate then we will all go away. I ask you—which perspective holds what is better for ALL OF FANDOM?
Then after the door slamming shut after we played by the rules and in their anger the SJWs begin with character attacks and smears. I’m sorry I don’t have the original as it was deleted from the internet. This story and similar other ones were printed in Salon, Entertainment Weekly, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Boston Herald, io9, Huffington Post and others. I have only Breitbarts few quotes from the original which appeared in Entertainment Weekly.
Brad Torgerson was identified in the article as a white supremacist. His wife is African American and he has two or three children. I could go on but it wastes my time. The harassment, name calling, and bullying erupted like Mt. Vesuvius directed at the Sad Puppies. Larry Correia had death threats and called his local sheriff to make sure he wasn’t “swatted” because Larry is a gun nut and knows how to use one. Swatting is when someone calls up a false crime and cries about worrying for their life. Police SWAT teams show up and if they see a guy brandishing a fire arm they often kill the person while they are waking up confused and defending their home. It is a nasty little SJW trick. SJWs are often terrorists. And before you say—-but the SJWs would not do anything remotely like terrorism…
or this when an SJW doesn’t like her military neighbor. The police accidently kill the vet’s 10 year old brother.
Perhaps this might explain why I don’t lash out at Theodore Beale. I have talked with this man twice in my life and each time he has been courteous and civil. I don’t know him and just because he thinks Andrew Breivik is a hero does not mean that I do. JK Jemisin however is a self proclaimed SJW. She supports these sorts of activities. She talks a lot about Ferguson and West Baltimore and how racist the cops are. Her words to this are:
“Neutral on Ferguson? Means you’re pro-police-brutality. Neutral on gay rights? Means you’re pro discrimination. Fuck neutrality.”
I won’t say that I don’t disagree or reject all of what she says. I agree with her thinking about Raif Badowi for instance. I think she is a mental nut case about white priviledge every bit as a I do about Beale’s comments directed at her that spun her up in the first place. In an SJW mind there is not room for neutrality.
“This is why I said the way to heal the community, would be for the puppies to drop the politics and make it about their love for specific books.”
Who says they are not? Are you saying I’m not a Butcher fan? My bookshelf and time would say otherwise. And why is Phil Sandifer’s fandom and support of Dr. Who less repulsive than my fandom and support for Larry Correia or anything on the fan list.
“Dr. Who fans organized for the love of their show, not “to stick it to the gun-lobby” or something.”
Fine, I accept that they love their show. Frankly Sandifer’s tastes are as repulsive as what he holds for Brad Torgerson. I never liked Dr. Who much. I like parts of it. I recognize it is great but I think that a lot of it might be driven to “stick it to” the Star Trek and Star Wars fans in order to make it the ultimate science fiction series. I just can’t explain Sandifer’s over the top venom directed towards Brad Torgerson for Brad’s choices.
a. “I don’t watch that many US news because they lack international coverage.”
I take it that you accept my premise then. That Fox is or is not credible is not what I’m debating.
“I really feel that this gatekeeper business is mostly paranoia, brought to full bloom by conservatives who mostly live within an opinion bubble and then find that the world is much bigger and more diverse than they thought and that they only own a small corner of it, not “basically everything” as they thought. And that makes them feel disenfranchised.”
Interesting observation. Ironically it has been my experience that liberals tend to be the most closed minded and ignorant of human nature. They speak of tolerance but appear to be the least tolerant of other opinions that I know. That isn’t to say that I find them all to be intolerant and close minded. I think a lot is explained by how they approach their thinking process. Once both camps start talking I’ve found that rational thought wins the day and people change their minds and views.
“I don’t think that conservative philosophy in general warrants exclusion.”
“You also want Gallo fired for her words.”
If I said that then I retracted it later. I said that she was too immature for the job and that she needed some guidance and mentoring. At least that is where I stand with her now that my head has cooled a bit. If I were her boss and I thought she was salvageable I would keep her and if not I’d toss her out.
“When you have profited as much as you have from Beale and support him in so many key issues then his racism, sexism and homophobia do become your problem at some point. “
I HAVE NOT. Larry Correia has not. Brad Torgerson has not. You are mistaken sir.
“In my mind, if the puppies were a respectable and honorable group of people, they would confront Beale. They would stand up to him and say: “Hey, quit using our name to enforce your hateful trolling.” You say, you want to diversify the Hugos, he says, he wants to destroy them and he’s using sad puppies to do it. The sad puppies should be the first to oppose him, yet they just sit back and let him do their dirty work.”
I stand by what Larry Correia says about Vox Day. He is your problem, not mine. Beale says what he wants and does what he wants. I can’t control him and don’t speak for him. I’m not going to waste time on a witch hunt that would be fruitless especially with an enemy as vile as the SJWs. (social justice warriors)
“And your crack about intellectuals tend to be left thinking is a ridiculous notion.”
I don’t disagree with the Pew research as it has been my experience that girls read more than boys and college educated read more books. I think your conclusions are wrong. The population of college professors you’ve shown no counter numbers to my facts. College students are representative of the swath of the population but their political persuasion is unknown. You make an assumption based on slewed facts. You are counting the college professors and not the total population. Your source, the Wire, is about as leftist as they come. Their conclusions are not backed with anything but liberal politics. Their controlling message is that college black women read more books. Their intent seems to be to create a positive image of black women. Their notions have not offended me at all. I think the only thing we can conclude is that we can agree upon is that intellectuals read more. Educated people read more.
1) Who are the SJWs?
Not a definition, specific people. So far they are like unicorns to me. It seems I never have met one. So, who in this is in your opinion a SJW?
“Even the Sad and Rabid Puppy lists were more diverse than last years Hugo winners.”
The statistics say something else. Compare the nominees in the of the last years.
Look at these numbers Jim Hines summed up about the gender balance in the past years and this year:
“For the likes of Irene Gallo, Sandifer, and Patrick Nielsen-Hayden and all their talk they sure came up with a white white white male male male bunch.”
If you look at the numbers that is factually untrue.
“And if you look at the number of conservative writers versus the liberals writers who were awarded the bias against conservatives is staggering.”
No, it is not. They simply are in a minority. That is not a bias, that is what happens when you are in a minority a specific segement of people, in this case scifi fans.
“I think the only thing you can prove is that the Sad Puppies are willing to read anything—conservative or liberal—–but the SJWs can’t seem to do it or accept it and they actively stand against it.”
So far I have not seen Sad puppies going out of their box much and the SJW unicorns don’t seem to exist at all, which makes it hard to pin down their reading tastes.
“I ask you—which perspective holds what is better for ALL OF FANDOM?”
Hayden’s. He is not advocating to exclude anybody as the puppies did by pushing everybody else off the ballot. He is advocating that the Hugo belongs to the fans who put their heart’s blood into organizing it and I agree with him. If the puppies really want to play, they should have started by sharing in the work. By helping the organizers. Many conservatives do and they are well accepted in the community.
Not by attempting to push every other opinion out of the race. It’s impolite and dishinorable.
“Brad Torgerson was identified in the article as a white supremacist.”
“NK Jemisin however is a self proclaimed SJW.”
Finally an actual person for a unicorn! Non that I know very well but I will attempt to work with it.
“She supports these sorts of activities.”
She supports bomb threats and setting police swat teams on people? I think that is such a massive accusation that i will have to ask you for a concrete link to where she said such an outrageous thing?
What you cited from her does not express support for such tactics at all. It does show a clear stance against racism, homophobia and brutality though. All honorable causes in my mind, that should be voiced clearly.
“I think she is a mental nut case about white priviledge every bit as a I do about Beale’s comments directed at her that spun her up in the first place.”
I have read nothing that leads me to agree with you. She says racism is shit and to quietly stand by is shit too. I agree and I do not think that levels with being an Anders Breivik fanboy.
It’s not two sides of the same coin. One makes non-PC comments against white priviledge, the other advocates mutilation and murder as “logical”.
“I recognize it is great but I think that a lot of it might be driven to “stick it to” the Star Trek and Star Wars fans in order to make it the ultimate science fiction series.”
Doctor Who is older than both Star Trek and Star wars.
“I just can’t explain Sandifer’s over the top venom directed towards Brad Torgerson for Brad’s choices.”
I think that stems from the fact that Brad was debunked about the nominations being democratic. Most of the nominees turned out to be his cronies and were not even mentioned in the nomination thread.
” That Fox is or is not credible is not what I’m debating.”
Ooook, so facts don’t matter to you in a news channel?
“I stand by what Larry Correia says about Vox Day. He is your problem, not mine.”
I disagree. Correia brought him into this. The sad puppies dominate the ballot because of his suppport. They ralley to his letter writing campaigns. He is your problem and denying that confirms exactly what I said about conservatives ignoring the uglyness on their own side and thereby letting it fester.
” I think the only thing we can conclude is that we can agree upon is that intellectuals read more. Educated people read more.”
Yup and they also tend to vote more to left. Women read more and they vote more to the left. That is not “unknown”.
From my perspective those that espouse SJW philosophies like Irene Gallo are closer to your definition of neo-Nazi.
“-) Ideologies of racial supremacy (which race is not relevant, every nazi picks their own as the supreme one (google the ukrain Ugri for a non aryan example)”
The SJWs have said some of the most degrading things toward white people. They even have psychologist who discuss at length how stupid and wretched white male thinking is and DNA is. Strangely enough the affliction they describe does not cross over to white females. It isn’t hard to find a sea of articles about white male mediocrity, white male privilege, white male racial illiteracy to see the lunatic fringe.
-) Violent misogyny and antifeminism, because they believe women should be used for breeding and as subordinates to males.
SJWs frequently show their misogyny boldly and plain. I’ve never heard it shamed in the liberal ranks. I’ve avoided talking about it because here because it is so out of bounds. Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Michelle Bachman, and a bunch of other conservative females have been the focus of a lot of hatred. These were all women who are on the Conservative Hate F@#$K list. (You’ll have to figure out the word but it starts with F and rhymes with duck) I ask you would this fit your description of sexist and misogynist? There are several in the media who applauded this and many of them are still working. I would like to know what Irene Gallo thinks of that but I’m thinking that she probably approves based on her consistant venom spewed at the Sad Puppies.
Would Martin Bashir’s spoken fantasy to “defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth” fit your definition of violent misogyny?
GRRM has voiced his outrage that his side has never called for the firing of a person and that the Sad Puppies are too irrational to play that. Mr. Martin must be ignorant of this SJW tactic. This is what SJWs do to conservatives and their sympathizers all the time. Here are a list of victim of the SJWs—after I inspected it I found that it was not complete by a long stretch. There are far more people that I can name that are not on this list.
I want to be clear that I do not consider GRRM an SJW. He may be on your side of the fence but he is trying hard to get both camps to reason with each other and in that I find his actions commendable. He is policing your side while reaching out to others. I don’t find it surprising that he is suddenly under fire from SJWs for having rape in Game of Thrones—as if it is a surprise to anyone. The SJWs have waited until he proved “disloyal” to their narrative to pounce.
-) Violent racism against whoever is the victim of the day. Jews are still a thing but today violent aggression against muslims is far more common in Europe.
I would classify SJWs as fitting that description. Without a doubt. So when you show who has sympathies with these three neo-Nazi points I would say that SJWs fit that description very closely. Who then promotes SJW philosophy? Irene Gallo is closer in philosophy to an SJW than any Sad Puppy.
The Sad Puppies have NEVER called for violence. I don’t think the Rabid Puppies have either. I know that those neo-Nazi values are not close to what Brad Torgerson or Larry Correia have stated.
Wow. My family and I go away for a week’s vacation, and a day after we get back, I log on to the only sf/f blog I read on a daily basis and discover I’ve missed one hell of a discussion. I’m an English prof, not an historian or a politician, so much of what I’ve read here had to be processed more than once (and I’m still not sure I can straighten it all out). But the first book I finished upon getting back home contained an extremely relevant (I believe) passage that I’d like to share if I may. I’d been reading Fred Pohl’s “In the Problem Pit” (Bantam T8857, June 1976), a collection of short stories and a couple of non-fiction pieces. The last entry in the book had originally been published in the first “Clarion” collection in 1971. Titled “SF: The Game-Playing Literature,” the essay explains that what distinguishes sf from non-sf isn’t content, but method. As Pohl further comments in the last few paragraphs, “…science fiction reduces the entire continuum of human knowledge to a sort of board game, and by systematically changing the rules of the game one or a few at a time investigates the possibility of alternate societies. Is this an important thing to do? No, not just important; it is transcendental, for there can be no hope of making a change in any condition we deplore until we know what alternatives are open to us. Science fiction gives us a sort of catalog of possible worlds. From the wish-book we can pick the ones we want. Without it we can resent and deplore, but our capacity to change is very small.
“One of the great personal satisfactions of living in the world of science-fiction readers and writers is observing how game-playing reduces partisan tensions. Our uptight ‘real’ world affects science fiction, too. Some sf people are right-wingers and some are left; some are deeply religious, some not at all; some battle for women’s lib or black power or the freedom of the drug scene and some are firmly for the Establishment; and yet all of them are able to join in the game.
“In a real world that every day seems more partisan, more grimy, more sullen, and more violent, this is a source not only of pleasure but of hope…”
Pohl wrote that 44 years ago. Still seems apropos today…
Thank you for that quote. It encapsulates very well the world of free thought that fantastic literature has always represented to me. A place where you can leave the rigid boundaries of today’s societies behind and let your thoughts run about what could be possible.
This is why the attempt to police even fantastic literature to a right wing narrative, feels so wretched to me. This should be a place were everyone can play.