Return Home

Dear Conservatives: Don’t Let the Door Hit You On the Way Out

Sunday, August 23rd, 2015 | Posted by Jay Maynard

Loncon 3 Hugo statue-smallThe results of the 2015 Hugo balloting are in. The results are a clear statement to conservatives: you’re not welcome in true SF fandom as long as you bitterly cling to your ideals.

When I read io9’s liveblog of the results this morning, I was dismayed, but not the tiniest bit surprised, to see NO AWARD after NO AWARD, all to the accompaniment of raucous cheering and Charlie Jane Anders’s gloating. This is exactly what I predicted after reading the clamor here at Black Gate and elsewhere on the net, and the surging tide of people saying “Vote NO AWARD on everything! Let’s show the Puppies they can’t get away with it!”

In the editor categories, as well as some of the others, there were plenty of nominees who have won Hugo awards in the past, and are considered at the top of their field. All went down beneath the NO AWARD tidal wave.

After the readers’ packets were distributed, there were comments to the effect “Eh, all these works are crap, anyway.” John O’Neill’s post this morning here at Black Gate reiterated this view after the results were announced: “Dear Puppies: Your Taste Sucks.”

There’s also comment from editors and the like around the net about how they read the works and found them worthy not of being tossed lightly aside, but rather hurled with great force.

So which is it? Is it a vote against slate tactics, or is it a vote against the specific works nominated?

There’s no way to tell, now. We can’t divine a voter’s intentions after the vote has been cast, and there’s no equivalent to exit polling here.

World of Ptavvs-smallBut does it really matter which it is, from the conservative viewpoint? I believe not. Either we’re told that the stories we favor are not good enough, or that we shouldn’t bother to nominate works we find worthy… because if we do, people will vote against them on principle no matter how good they may be.

Either way, we’re not welcome. Oh, our money’s good, to be sure, but our opinions and viewpoints? Go away, old white man.

Now, it would normally be possible to interpret the results in a charitable light: “the nominees weren’t that good, but please keep trying, and don’t use slate tactics.” I am of the firm belief that one should not ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.

The problem here is that ignorance does not adequately explain the cheering and gloating over the results. Those reveal the true motives.

I’ve loved SF since my uncle gave me a copy of  Larry Niven’s World of Ptavvs for Christmas when I was 8. I rose to Internet fame as the Tron Guy because of a costume I made for the Masquerade of the second con I ever went to. My bookshelves are full of SF, classic and otherwise. My candidate for the best work of literature of all time is Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. I had thought of myself as an SF fan, welcome in fandom because I like the same things other SF fans do.

No more. It’s clear to me that a conservative cannot be accepted as an SF fan. One must kowtow to the leftist gods of diversity for its own sake and tolerance for only the approved subjects and equality of outcome, or else one is not a true SF fan. An author must be some oppressed minority to be considered worthy, and old white men need not apply.

Jay Maynard Tron Guy-smallDiversity? Great, as long as we all think in lockstep. Bring up diversity of thought and you’re immediately accused of only wanting to read stuff written by old white men.

I’m other things besides an SF fan. I’m a pilot, and a ham radio operator, and a computer geek, and more besides. I’d long thought that Worldcon was to SF fans what EAA’s Airventure at Oskhosh is to aviation geeks, and what the Dayton Hamvention is to hams: the premiere event of its fandom, to which any devotee should endeavor to go at least once in their life.

But I see no reason, now, to expend any effort at all to go to a Worldcon where those like me are plainly unwelcome. Oh, they’d happily take my money, but I’ve already had the experience of paying to go to a con where I was quickly made unwelcome — and that one didn’t require much in the way of travel. Paying a kilobuck to be miserable for a weekend is an experience I’d just as soon pass up.

Go ahead, fans. Hate Vox Day all you want. I am as repulsed by his misogynistic writings as you are (I’m not convinced he’s not simply trolling; to me, though, that is no excuse, as I consider trolls to be the scourge of the Internet). Don’t conflate me or the other Sad Puppies with him.

I am a conservative, and proud of it, but I also agree with the Left on subjects they hold near and dear to their hearts. As one example: I’m pro-choice. We’re not all monolithic in our beliefs.

But we’re all being treated that way, and repudiated by polite fannish society. The works we like are being held up as examples of our favorite writers’ inferiority and wrongthink to boot. “Your Taste Sucks”!

No, it doesn’t. It’s just different. You know, diverse? By saying it does, you lose any chance of convincing me otherwise.


Jay Maynard rose to Internet fame in 2004 for daring to show how he made a skin-tight Masquerade costume inspired by the movie TRON, but he’s been an SF fan for much longer than that. He works as a software developer, and lives in Fairmont, Minnesota with a roommate and upwards of 70 computers (they’ve both lost count).

115 Comments »

  1. The link redirects to a post about soundtracks. Here is the correct one:
    https://www.blackgate.com/2015/08/23/dear-puppies-your-taste-sucks/#comments

    Comment by CMR - August 23, 2015 2:50 pm

  2. Fixed. Dunno how it went wrong; it looked right in the editor. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 23, 2015 2:54 pm

  3. Yeah, folks going on twitter and chortling “Fans win! Nazis lose”…”The puppies arent our people”

    Proves Correia’s initial premise to be the most factual reading of the whole mess.

    Wrongfun should be banned.

    Wrongfans should be driven from the herd.

    Comment by TW - August 23, 2015 3:24 pm

  4. >The results of the 2015 Hugo balloting are in. The results are a clear statement to conservatives: you’re not welcome in true SF fandom as long as you bitterly cling to your ideals.

    I think the key word here is “bitterly”. People who do things bitterly are generally not enthusiastically welcome anywhere! Bitter people are mean no matter what their political views. Bitter liberals, bitter conservatives, bitter old ladies who happen to make delicious cookies; it’s just not worth being around.

    However, I don’t think that just because the Hugo Awards went the way they went this weekend means that it’s all of SF Fandom saying anything close to “you’re not welcome”. I think it was more that a line got drawn in the sand and people felt they were forced to take a liberal vs. conservative stance even if they generally wouldn’t have thought about it. No one HAD to choose a side, obviously. Everyone could have simply voted as they would have regularly (and I’m sure I’m not the only one that did that), but alas people love to get caught up in us vs. them mentalities.

    I was also dismayed when I saw the amount of NO AWARD victories. I suppose it could have worse and the entire Hugo ballot could have been NO AWARD. It’s especially silly to me because both sides have somehow managed to claim that NO AWARD is a victory to their side. For me that just underscores how dumb everyone has been about all of this. Both sides claiming to be sworn advocates of ACTUAL diversity while being real jerks to the others.

    I don’t believe either side really took the other’s concerns into consideration. People love to react kneejerk defensively to anyone questioning what they believe in.

    >After the readers’ packets were distributed, there were comments to the effect “Eh, all these works are crap, anyway.”

    Honestly, I did find that this was a weak year nomination-wise. But there’ve been weak years in the past. I’m not well versed enough in everything that came out last year to really say that it was a weak year, but on that same thought I’m not well versed enough in everything that came out last year to say that it was a weak ballot because of slate voting from the Puppies.

    It was my personal opinion that a lot of the stuff was weak. That being said that didn’t mean I NO AWARDed every category.

    >But does it really matter which it is, from the conservative viewpoint? I believe not. Either we’re told that the stories we favor are not good enough, or that we shouldn’t bother to nominate works we find worthy… because if we do, people will vote against them on principle no matter how good they may be.

    I think this is the exact wrong attitude to have (no offense, I can’t think of a less abrasive way to say that)!

    People have complained that there has been a prejudice against certain types of works in the Hugo ballot of recent years. But the Hugo ballot is fan voted. All that means is that the people who like a certain type of SF aren’t voting as actively! I think a call to vote rather than a call to arms, which was how a lot of the Puppies stuff that I read came across as, would have been better received by all sides and may have resulted in less controversy.

    Comment by TheShrimpzilla - August 23, 2015 4:22 pm

  5. The problem here is that ignorance does not adequately explain the cheering and gloating over the results. Those reveal the true motives…

    Don’t conflate me or the other Sad Puppies with him.

    There was cheering and gloating when the ballots were released. If that didn’t make you a puppy, why would the same now be an indication of anything other than anti-puppidom?

    Comment by Jeff Stehman - August 23, 2015 4:25 pm

  6. Sorry, missed my rabids in there. If that didn’t make you a rabid puppy, why is this an indication of anything other than anti-rabid-puppidom?

    Comment by Jeff Stehman - August 23, 2015 4:26 pm

  7. “All that means is that the people who like a certain type of SF aren’t voting as actively!”

    It’s hard for 1000 puppies to outvote 3500 people determined to slap puppies down hard and permanently.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 23, 2015 4:30 pm

  8. “If that didn’t make you a rabid puppy, why is this an indication of anything other than anti-rabid-puppidom?”

    I guess it’s too much to ask for the SJWs to act with the class George R. R. Martin, among others encouraged them to show.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 23, 2015 4:31 pm

  9. Jay,

    Sorry. I should have been more clear in my comment. I meant in recent years, not counting last night because obviously this year the voting wasn’t representative of how the normal fandom votes because there were people, as you say, voting just to slap puppies down.

    Comment by TheShrimpzilla - August 23, 2015 4:33 pm

  10. Milo Yiannopoulus stated pretty much all I thought of this:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/23/set-phasers-to-kill-sjws-burn-down-the-hugo-awards-to-prove-how-tolerant-and-welcoming-they-are/

    Dear Sad Puppy,

    The Hugo of your father and grandfather’s day is not the esteemed award it once was. Here are some numbers that you should think about. Yesterday’s vote which represents all of fandom was a mere 5950 votes from across the world and was heralded as a record breaking crowd. This is a good thing but keep in mind last year there were only 1,923. In 2014 Sad Puppy numbers were estimated at less than 100 people, and began this year at around 200, and now we have about 500 people in our ranks. The Rabid Puppies started off with a little over 300 and have roughly 550 now. I got these numbers from this source: https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/2015-hugo-stats-initial-analysis/ I think they are probably close but we won’t know for certain until the results are released. That means that there are about 2500 hardcore Truefans who voted for No Award, about 1000 neutrals who voted for whoever and about 1400 Truefan lights who might have voted for a puppy or two (GRRM’s crowd).

    Now that might be daunting but consider that we started off with a handful and now we have about 20%. We recruited with our eyes closed. There was no campaign or get out the vote drive on our end. The CHORFs were out in full force to whip people in line and drive them to the Hugo. Make no mistake, they put a lot of energy into this for months. This is all they have to show for it? That is the best they’ve got? Whereas our side in some catagories were scattered around 4 or 5 choices while theirs were not. Half of them voted No Award and the other half voted whatever. In many areas the vote from the Puppies put it over the top. Mathematically we were fighting an uphill battle.

    Now, hands down, we beat them up bad when we got the nominations. The squeals from the CHORFs was genuine fear and pain. They honestly feared that their precious little club was going to be swept away. They beat the drums and whipped their side into battle and we lost on their counter attack. Here is the thing: they think it is over. They think we are done. Most of that asterix crap was about humiliating us. The No Award was to make them look dominating and our cause hopeless. They actually believe that we are going to curl up into the fetal position and quit because that is what they would do. What they don’t know is just how angry they made us. What we heard wasn’t their jeering and crowing when “No Award” was sounded. What we heard was: “bring more puppies”.

    Look at the various conventions around and it becomes obvious that the Hugo is irrelevant in comparison. Not more than a week ago they held the Dota 2 World Championships. If you don’t know what that is, it is a team computer game that is not the most popular game out there. The fans gathered over $17 million in prize money and streamed the show to over 250 thousand people and had nearly 2 million views and seen in over 400 movie theaters. They had a crowd four times the size of Sasaquan. Worldcon is a joke by comparison to anything in the science fiction and fantasy fields. The comic industry is dying from the same SJWs that are destroying our genre and yet Comic Con is mainstream and huge by comparison. It is so insignificant that Hollywood didn’t even bother to send a representative for the Guardians of the Galaxy or Orphan Black crew. That is pretty pathetic. In contrast, Hollywood capitalizes on the comic and gaming cons. 6 thousand people is pretty much a waste of their time.

    The blueblood Truefans have not opted to bring the Hugo to the wide public. They have kept it small and expensive on purpose. Remember, the rule changes are designed to protect the old status quo which we have ripped to pieces. When the audience stood up last night when asked who is a writer or editor or whatever nearly the entire audience stood up. If they had asked how many fans were there it would have been a handful in the audience at best. We were looking at the publishing industry last night and not fandom. Comic Con and Gen Con look like fandom. While Dota brought 250K streaming Worldcon brought in 3K. What we accomplished this year is to go up the curtain that hid the Wizard of Oz CHORF and ripped it back and exposed it for the sham that it is. They were the ones that burned down the Hugo, not Vox Day. I’m telling you, they came off like the elitist bullies that they are. When Toni Weisskopf walked off it was after a barrage of crap hurled at her. The nominees and the asterix thing looked nice until you looked at the intent of their message. As John O’Niell said, “your taste sucks”. They were about their jacked up elite club and identity politics.

    Worldcon was a giant suck fest. David Gerrold looked like he went to a Good Will shelter to get his suit. Tennis shoes? Seriously? And he never buttoned the jacket. Did they let him drink before the show? And I’ve seen high school graduations scripted better—I’m serious too. The awardees were stumbling into each other, there was no picture moment and the hosts and the help looked confused and jacked up like the script. Did they at least practice it in a dry run? The skit was telltale of how the night would be. I felt bad for the kid that designed the award because it looked pretty good but it was all wasted on No Award. It was awful to see Toni Weisskopf walk away and how humiliating it must have been for the asterix award. Sure there were highlights. I think the best was Ken Lui who actually talked about humans getting together on science fiction and why that was important. It came too little too late.

    And be glad that the Rabid Puppies ran a slate. Check out that post put above on who would have won:
    https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/2015-hugo-stats-initial-analysis/ So what if they No Awarded Best Related Work. It knocked Anita Sarkeesian off the list. Is there any doubt that the hate weasel of the femin-nazis would not have won the Hugo? And best editor go to Patrick Nielsen-Hayden—AGAIN? Or John Scalzi win AGAIN? All those three were bumped by the Rabid Puppies. Scalzi is not any where near the writer of Heinlein, Azimov, or Philip K. Dick caliber. I think there you will find the Tor editor’s true anger about the Rabid Puppies. Way to go Rabids!

    Jay, I’m not down, I’m done. I’m not out of the fight though. Most here hate me anyway. When John says: “the Puppies have proven incapable of recommending fiction of any kind of quality, and certainly quality that rises to the level of Hugo worthiness. “ and about the BG Hugo nomination “And we didn’t feel particularly honored by it. It was like being asked out by the town drunk.” I can pretty much tell you that BG doesn’t like me or respect the support I give much. I guess I embarrass them. It is like you said Jay, our money is good but it is clear that we are not welcome here or at the Hugos. I’d like to apologize to my friends back home who I brought here. You guys can laugh about it later like we did when I made that first batch of home brewed banana flavored beer, or that short cut by Red Fish Bay.

    Good luck Jay.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 23, 2015 5:42 pm

  11. I guess it’s too much to ask for the SJWs to act with the class George R. R. Martin, among others encouraged them to show.

    Was it too much for the puppies to act with the class that GRRM encouraged them to show? Ah, but you don’t want to be painted with that broad brush. So why do you use it yourself? 3,500 in one stroke?

    Comment by Jeff Stehman - August 23, 2015 5:49 pm

  12. Touché.

    However, there wasn’t cheering and whooping and hollering from non-rabids, and certainly not from me. Was there anyone last night asking the SJWs to cool their unseemly display?

    To me, their cheering strikes me the same way as the Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11 did: celebrating the destruction. To be sure, the Hugos don’t begin to rise to the level of the 9/11 attacks…but the same celebratory spirit was there.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 23, 2015 5:53 pm

  13. @Jeff—I stood with GRRM against the more vocal Sad Puppies when it wasn’t popular to do so. When it came time to vote I read the selections and voted as I saw they fell out. The whole Sad Puppy strategy failed to get awards or many nominations just as GRRM failed to call the left to reason and just treat it like any other year. The Puppies just want to advance their fiction is all. Getting them to the ball game is one thing, winning the prize is another. I think the spirit of the slate voting is more important in the final than the nomination process. Do you expect a bunch of Dr. Who fans NOT to vote for a Dr. Who nomination? Slates on a small scale have been around for a long time. I would expect them in the nominating process. In the finals I would expect people to be less partisan and more in tune with the spirit of the Hugo. Apparently, that is when it is okay to slate vote a No Award because you didn’t get your way.

    Jeff, it will be very difficult for both sides to set aside partisan ship now. Slates work so you can count on them happening. There was absolutely no good will shown towards the Puppies from the get go.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 23, 2015 6:09 pm

  14. > When John says: “the Puppies have proven incapable of recommending fiction of any kind of quality, and certainly quality that
    > rises to the level of Hugo worthiness. “ and about the BG Hugo nomination “And we didn’t feel particularly honored by it. It
    > was like being asked out by the town drunk.” I can pretty much tell you that BG doesn’t like me or respect the support I give much.

    Ape,

    Sorry if I hurt your feelings in all this. I hope it doesn’t come as a shock to you that I’m critical of the Puppies’ taste. We declined a Hugo nomination back in April, rather than be associated with this effort… I should have thought that made my feelings pretty clear.

    Still, I think there’s much harsher things that can be said about someone than that I don’t like their taste. But that certainly doesn’t mean we don’t value you at Black Gate.

    In all the post-Awards rhetoric, the comment I’ve found to be most poignant was from BG author James Enge, who said this on Facebook:

    > Let me say this about the puppies — rabid, sad, or otherwise: they were right to act, to participate in something that
    > mattered to them. Fandom was caught napping on the nominations, but not on the final voting. We should rise to the
    > puppies’ challenge (and example) and participate in the nominations for next year’s.

    Hear, hear. Vox Day may have called for James’ skull — in a perfect example of the kind of loathsome language the Puppies seemed to delight in (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/08/negotiation.html), but here at Black Gate, I’m proud that we kept things on a higher plane than that. You were a big part of that discussion.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 23, 2015 6:10 pm

  15. For the record, John, I do not delight in Vox Day’s calling for anyone’s skull. Rabid Puppies might have delighted in it, but I suspect Sad Puppies did not.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 23, 2015 6:17 pm

  16. Thank you, Jay. James is a friend of mine.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 23, 2015 6:21 pm

  17. “There was absolutely no good will shown towards the Puppies from the get go.”

    This is slightly unfair, but only slightly so; this site is one of the very few places where the conservative viewpoint got at least a respectful airing. (GRRM’s LJ is the only other one I can think of.)

    The rest of the net? Not so much. Conservatives are used to being demonized, though, and we tend to reply in the vein in which we’re attacked.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 23, 2015 6:28 pm

  18. Hell John, your taste in fiction sucks as bad as mine considering how many books you recommended I liked. Keep sucking it up! Fandom as it exists now, based on the Hugo voting, may think that our fiction stinks. That’s okay. I’m not jazzed by what they have put out these last few years. Back then I sat on the sidelines and bitched and that action got exactly zero stories that I like nominated. This year I voted and I’m not sorry that I did. I broke ranks with the Sad Puppies here and there during the nominations but I don’t think I was wrong to do so.

    The voting population might just shift and considering how poorly writers were treated I don’t think y’all are winning over new hearts and minds. Today identity politics might have trumped story, but sitting around and crying foul is a losing strategy.

    Besides, I learned a lot this year. You have a huge division in your own ranks. It is good to see many think like GRRM, Horton, and the Sad Puppy leaders that the final ballot should be an informed vote (ie read the story) during the finals. The majority are breaking ranks and voting for what they think when they get to people that are worthy of the Hugo. I did. I saw something that I liked better and voted. Toni Weisskopf nearly won out over the No Award crowd. It was sad to see a decent person with good work get tossed under the bus but…the majority of fandom thought otherwise and not with the principles that GRRM highlighted. They clapped and cheered very vigorously when she lost.

    I know that slate voting for nominations is vulgar for the No Award crowd. Still, I think partisan voting isn’t a bad thing in nominations but in the final it should be broken down to what is and what is not Hugo worthy and slates are bad for the finals. No one gets what they want that is just the nature of things. Usually there are four losers and not five. Fandom votes and history is made and most felt that a slate was acceptable for the finals.

    Yes John, I was hurt by the comment:

    “And we…”
    All of Black Gate?

    “didn’t feel particularly honored by it.”
    Oops, that wasn’t what I wanted to have happen. You guys work–for free–for me and other viewers here at Black Gate. If I had known y’all’s feelings going in I would not have done that. I have nothing but respect for guys. I like Nick Oz, Elisabeth Cady, Sean Maclaughlin, Derek Kunsten, Goth Chick, Bob Byrne, Howard Andrew Jones, Marie Bilbideau, and you John and others. When Sarah Avery won an award I was proud as hell for her. I got my buddies to check you out and a couple of them tweet or post on Facebook because we think you guys are boss.

    “It was like being asked out by the town drunk.”

    Ah hell. Now, I was thinking that you could be talking about Vox Day and just Vox Day, then again, you could be talking about Rabid and Sad Puppies. This could be a metaphor for a loathsome person. Then again, I make some crazy posts here. My humor isn’t always funny to some. Maybe I come off as drunk.

    I do know that just because I’m a fan it doesn’t mean that the person I like, likes me or wants to be BFF. Still, if I asked you out to the prom John you or whoever at BG might just say yes. I am a lot more charming in person than I am in print. You might get over the whole town drunk thing and be happy to go.

    I try to think long view about things. Respect is earned and I’ll either gain it or I won’t. This Sad Puppy thing I look in the long view too. It is a movement in progress and it isn’t perfect. Many of the Puppies complain about how the left treat them but then do the same right back. It will take time to work itself out.

    I’m looking at Christopher Kastenschmidt and the Elephant and Macaw Banner series. So far it has been some of the best sword and sorcery I’ve read in a long time. Now, if my taste in fiction sucks, this one is like a maelstrom of suckage. I mean—this one could draw an egg through a thin garden hose suck. It is sure to be my pick for 2016 short story/novella. The Sad Puppies will be wagging their tails over this sucky story.

    I’ve got another novel by Richard Tongue in the Battlecruiser Alamo series. Now there are so many in this series printed this year alone it will be difficult to see which one sucks the most. I will find the worst though.

    You know, it would be cool if you threw old Ape a bone and let me send you a book review to consider. Considering how much you and I have the same sucky taste in fiction you might be won over.

    So, military sci-fi, sword and sorcery, with maximum suckage!

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 23, 2015 8:23 pm

  19. Conservatives are used to being demonized, though, and we…

    Jay, you’ve got a lot to learn about people, and unless you do, you’ll never leave the bitterness behind. Peace be with you.

    There was absolutely no good will shown towards the Puppies from the get go.

    Wild, perhaps they should have asked for it at the get go.

    Comment by Jeff Stehman - August 23, 2015 10:13 pm

  20. “Jay, you’ve got a lot to learn about people[…]”

    All right, Jeff, I must be dense. Please explain to me how conservatives aren’t demonized int he public discourse every day.

    Bitter? After the shellacking conservatives have been subjected to for the last couple of decades? I think I’ve got a right to be bitter.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 23, 2015 10:18 pm

  21. And liberals haven’t been demonized for just as long, if not longer?

    Comment by sftheory1 - August 23, 2015 10:33 pm

  22. Jay – the reason conservatives are villified is that they’ve deliberately and repeatedly associated themselves with people who are outright vile.

    When it comes down to it, people choose possibly-wrong-headed economic policies (Obama, Clinton) over child molesters (Huckabee’s allies), hypocrites (Wiener), violent thugs (survivalists and neo-fascist types) and those who can’t relate to other people (much of the Tea Party…or the Puppies). Conservative is a bad word for many in the US now, and conservatives have no one to blame but themselves.

    I am a highly religious person who does not support most of the liberal party platform and believes firmly in fiscal responsibility. But I’m not going to associate myself with what most people think of when they head ‘conservative’, because that’s not what I stand for at all.

    Re: the slate, I’ve tried most of the Puppy authors and I think they’re pretty bad writers. It’s not that I don’t like action adventures, rockets, etc. Those writers are just bad. Try Andre Norton, Timothy Zahn, or any of a hundred great writers to see why people chose No Award over the Puppy authors. There’s no comparison.

    Comment by Pike - August 23, 2015 10:50 pm

  23. Sigh. *hear* ‘conservative’. Typos are a pit.

    Also – it always struck me as odd that in a genre completely focused on possible futures, innovations and how those would change society that Puppies insist on sticking to old tropes and formulas. The whole Puppy complaint just seemed so anti-sci-fi. What, you mean as society and technology has changed the predictive, furturistic fiction genre has changed to? How could this be! There was very much a get-off-my-lawn feel to the Puppy posts I read that felt much more appropriate to someone grousing about how historical novels kept getting their period wrong than to talking about sci-fi. It was incredibly weird to this life-long sci-fi fan.

    Comment by Pike - August 23, 2015 10:56 pm

  24. If the pups were all wild-eyed lefties the slate would have been greeted with the same lack of enthusiasm. It didn’t help that VD was hovering around with his usual, um, style, but the problem with the slate is that it was a slate, not the personal bias of the people behind it.

    Comment by Orc - August 23, 2015 11:29 pm

  25. @Jeff—I think it was the Navajo neighbor I had who said that beauty is harmony. He was pretty wise. That goofy Hari Krishna stuff with Silverberg was a site better than the little jabs with asterix and skits about phasering dark lords. Listening to Ken Liu talk about humanity was more inspiring than all the little snarks coming from Gerrold. Even Chu was professional enough to make neutral remarks and leave his politics to his rainbow tie. That is how it is done. Act like professionals and not school yard bullies. That makes harmony and right now praising people who promote it will do more good than anything.

    Look, I have no idea why the Truefans feel victimized. They won. They have been winning for years. I don’t know if they can be happy and have harmony without extinction of the wrongfans. Truefans don’t feel that we belong in the precious Hugo world. That is kinda sad if you ask me. In the Sad Puppy world there is room for all. We may not like your ideas or your fiction but we are not calling for your extinction or your exclusion. Therein is the difference. It’s too bad if you don’t think we belong. We don’t plan on going away. If you want harmony play nice.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 23, 2015 11:34 pm

  26. Jay, don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. So, the pigs kept us from winning by scorching the awards. Let them cheer. John Scalzi won nothing, not even for his career peak Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded. If you Were a Dinosaur won nothing. NK Jemison wasn’t on the ballot.

    Meanwhile, VD’s recommendation Wesley Chu won. Congratulations for a real SF novel winning the Hugo. I pray it will happen more often. VD had nominations he deserved for Riding the Red Horse. ‘The Hot Equations’ was nominated for setting a bar for SF that will be referenced for decades. Eric Raymond got a Campbell nomination for the most promising new author, which he is. Congratulations to them all.

    If VD had won anything the pigs would have lost big. They celebrate a retreat.

    Best Hugo in decades.

    Comment by bruce99999999 - August 23, 2015 11:39 pm

  27. I think that the applause for No Award will make perfect sense, if you look at it from another perspective. Suppose that the following conditions are generally true:
    – that past Hugo awards have fairly reflected fan voting
    – that past Hugo awards weren’t gamed by slates
    – and that a lot of fans liked them.

    Then the following happens:
    – a group of conservatives and another group of racist fascists (if that’s not a fair description of Vox Day, you’ll have to explain why) each publicly release slates of militaristic, stereotypically conservative fiction.
    – their slates are coordinated and overlap heavily; the conservative group accepts the fascist group.
    – some categories are completely filled with these nominees; the quality is so low as to be risible.
    – the conservatives and the fascists shout for months that the only ethical thing to do is to read the fiction that they have chosen, using a method of cliquish voting never before accepted by fans, and choose which is least nauseating, and give a Hugo to that one.

    And the great mass of fans, who have accepted ways of behaving in their subculture, but have never confronted a coordinated assault on their norms before, don’t know how everyone will react to this. Why don’t they know? Because they are unorganized, unlike the conservatives and their fascist allies — and all they have to guess on what will happen is a set of group norms that have never been articulated in the past.

    The cheering for No Award happened after months of being told that they were a minority, the fiction they had voted for in the past was crap, that it was produced by slates, and that there was an uncounted majority of people who LIKED the crap that the conservatives and fascists had gamed onto the ballot.

    That applause broke out when everyone realized it wasn’t true.

    As for you not being welcome, well — both authors that you mentioned as being excellent have won Hugos. The Hugo for Best Novel this year went to a novel that can be classified in the ‘hard’ science fiction bent. And, the fans are voting for a new system of voting that will make slates fairly pointless. Since this whole thing began with the conservatives and the fascists insisting that slates were used in the past, and theirs was just a rival slate, then everyone should be happy that now these will be diluted on BOTH sides. So the fiction you like can get its fair hearing.

    But if you don’t want people to clap when your fiction loses, don’t game the system, and don’t ally yourself with fascists.

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 23, 2015 11:40 pm

  28. To me the essence of Puppygate is twofold:
    First, in an effort to find works to fit their narrow worldview, the puppies sites (especially rabid, but also sad), some of the recommendations were for extremely poorly written material. Some of the recommendations were for genuinely good material (I was glad to see Guardians of the Galaxy win Best Dramatic Presentation: Long Form even though it was a puppy choice)but there are so many categories, and so many works on the ballot that it would have been extremely difficult for any one fan to read all the stories, novels, blogs, etc., and watch all the tv episodes and movies. So once people noticed that some of the material on the ballot was subpar and in some cases utter dreck, that it became easier to focus on those works not on the puppy slates.
    Second was that the nominating process seemed almost like a cult-like follow-the-leader mentality. Every year, lots of writers, lots of bloggers, lots of fans post their own recommendations around the time that the nominations open. Usually those are merely one person’s opinions and are treated as such. Even with popular writers like GRRM, who have extremely loyal fanbases, their recommendations do not automatically make the ballot. When every single recommendation by rabid puppies and almost every recommendation of sad puppies made the ballot, that made a lot of people uncomfortable. it raised the question of whether there were people buying memberships just so they could nominate specific works because VD or someone else told them to, or whether some of the puppies bought multiple memberships just to skew the nominating process. Having one or two websites control the nominations to that degree looked fishy.

    The essence of Puppygate was not liberal vs. conservative. It was all about a very few people having too much control over the nominating process. As long as fans still read Heinlein, Nivin, Weber, and Card, among others, conservatives will continue to have a voice in science fiction fandom. Most science fiction is nonpolitical alnyways.

    Comment by Amy Bisson - August 24, 2015 12:19 am

  29. How many decades has it been since “liberal” became a curse word and people to be demonized by conservatives? Was it the 80’s or earlier?
    The Rabid Puppy followers is a larger contingent than the Sad Puppies and they cheerfully admit not reading the works they are voting for and just showing up to stick it to the SJWs, and since when did fighting for Social Justice – truth, justice, and the American Way, become bad things?
    So, boohoo Jay Maynard, cry me a river. I am glad I No Awarded two of the story categories where all the stories were not worthy. Yes, I voted for a Puppy nominee in the other. I also voted for some of the editors although I do not think enough information is provided to cast a very informed vote.
    BTW WildApe, Milo is biased and not very informed, really try reading the Wired article or even the Wall Street Journal report for better balance and someone not catering to your biases.

    Comment by elemming - August 24, 2015 3:20 am

  30. Sorry I dont agree.
    The reason is: Most Fans dont know what political spectrum their authors have. I certainly didnt, not before the Puppy slates began.

    There was a backlash against SLATES, Im sure of that (Guardians of the galaxy still won though), but not against conservatives. Many who voted agianst puppy slates did so, because of the flame war and the feeling that the puppies gamed the system. Not because they are conservatives. Much of the glooming was more about being happy, that the rabif opuppies didnt win anything and that this “gaming” didnt work.

    I also appose the idea, that your political view qualifies/disqualifies you for certain books. Do all conservatives like the same books? Do all liberals love the same books? I highly doubt that.
    Alert: A bit of generalisation: I think this whole “liberal/conservative is a very-US-thing. In Europe the divide is much smaller, and hasnt spread to cultur phanomens yet (gamersgate is much quieter here too).

    Comment by peer - August 24, 2015 3:53 am

  31. Small addendum: Its my believ that the backlash wouldnt have been so big if not for the the rabid puppies.
    A few conservative nominees wouldnt have stirred so much backlash. But the rabid puppy rhetoric and full slates just with rabid puppy nominees, leaving no space for “normal” ones? That certainly tipped the scale and made a lot of people angry.
    Vox Day suceeded in trolling there and damaged the sad puppy cause and the Hugos.

    So its strange that you leave him out of the blaming for the result.

    Comment by peer - August 24, 2015 4:07 am

  32. Conservatives are one thing. That is not a problem. There are lots of conservatives that have won Hugos and are will liked. But now we are talking about the puppies.

    Transhuman and Subhuman by John C Wright was placed on BOTH rabid and sad puppy slates. In that work we can read:

    “If you doubt me, ask a partisan of sexual liberation why copulating with one’s adult sister (with her consent of course), or with a menstruating fourteen year old (with the parent’s consent, of course), or with the corpse of one’s wife (with her permission granted in her last will and testament, of course), or with an ape (assuming she gave consent in sign language to the best of her ability, of course; or her owner gives consent on her behalf) in each case where actual coupling takes place, is evil, sick and perverted, whereas sexually stimulating the private parts of a person of one’s own sex, a situation where no copulation can take place, is nonetheless a cherished and romantic fulfillment of utterly natural longings which law, custom, society, public opinion, and the Roman Catholic Church must not only tolerate, but support, applaud, and approve. Ask them.”

    This is rampant homophobia. And the work was also full of rampant sexism and misogyny. Still, the puppies of BOTH slates nominated this. Still, 253 persons wanted this as their first choice for a Hugo. Still, 868 persons found this Hugo worthy.

    This tells me one of two things:

    a) The puppies have a high acceptance of homophobia and misogyny.

    OR

    b) The puppies didn’t even read what they were first nominating and then voting for.

    Neither speaks good of the puppies. In NO site of the puppies have I read any criticism about these parts of the nominated work. They think these vile and bigotted attacks are acceptable.

    So no, it is not about conservatives. It is a about a small minority of conservatives who have a high acceptance of misogyny and homophobia.

    If you don’t want to be conflated with Theodore Beale, why do you and the other sad puppies still want to be conflated with Wright?

    Comment by Hampus - August 24, 2015 8:21 am

  33. “So its strange that you leave him out of the blaming for the result.”

    Dude, I was standing with Jay before all this. I tried to play nice with you people. It didn’t work. Look at what you and others have said about us. You offer NOTHING that would make me want to stay focused on playing nice.

    1. Your side hates us because we are conservative. You don’t even think we are ethical or people worthy of civility. In order for us to be acceptable to you we must convert to be like you.
    2. Our literature is unworthy in your eyes and therefore it doesn’t matter whether or not it is read or not. It comes from us therefore it is wrong.
    3. You don’t like Vox Day. Even though he is not my leader or does not speak for me you treat me just like you do him. In fact, you treated Larry Correia just as poorly. So, we could be led by Mary Poppins and you would still hate us.
    4. You want us to all to stop using slates because they are unfair. Well, at the beginning of this I was seeing your point and feeling sorry that we had been so successful. I just wanted ONE to get nominated. Instead the Rabids were highly successful and you treated us all like crap and the whole thing as not legit. But when you guys do the same it is okay because it is on a small scale. Well, I SEE NO REASON NOT USE SLATES. Congrats, you’ve converted my thinking. I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t so, screw you. Anita Sarkaasian and Scalzi did not get a nomination. That is a win and the slate did it.

    “All year long we were told that we were a minority”

    You still are, but not at Worldcon. Enjoy yourselves and keep gloating. We will be back with friends. We started off last year with a 100, this year we started with 200 and finished with about 500. I found out that from the circle of my friends only one voted. The rest forgot or whatever. Hey, it is like you said, we are better organized and I promise you that all my buddies and more will be there in 2016.

    6. If you No Award every Hugo catagory for every year—-I DON’T CARE. I don’t like your tree humping, hug ISIS, white men suck fiction so I figure it all breaks even.
    7. When you come to your senses and you accept our rightful place along side all of fandom as equals then we can let go of slates and mean talk and such.

    Jay is about all you have left of reasonable Sad Puppies. Jay, I feel for you man. I don’t know why you want to embrace them. They don’t like you. They think you are a joke.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 24, 2015 8:26 am

  34. “In NO site of the puppies have I read any criticism about these parts of the nominated work. ”

    Yes!

    In internet debate the sides rarely reflect on their position. But the anti-puppys at least partially try to review some of work on the slates. I didnt see any reflection on part of the puppys thinking (if not “What did we do wrong?”) What could be improved so we actually reach our goals? Did we make mistakes? After all 2 writers refused to be nominated. Did anybody reflect on what that meant for the puppies?
    Sure its easier to blame the other side, but I would at least hoped that the sad puppies (the rabid ones are just trolls anyway) try to reflect instead of just deflect.

    Guardians of the Galaxy won. A puppy nominee. It is possible for the sad puppies to nominate something that can win. Why not build on that? Maybe the work was not as good as hoped?

    Comment by peer - August 24, 2015 8:29 am

  35. @ Wild Ape
    Your quoting me out of context. Amy wrote that the only reason “No award” was voted was because “we” hate conservatives(*) I said that were several reasons, Vox Day among them. I did not put them as a follower of Vox Day.

    (*) (Side note: There is a joke in Europe: In the US there are only conservatives and Hardcore Conservatives 😉 So please dont put “us” all in the same boat if you dont want to pu in the same boat as VD)

    Comment by peer - August 24, 2015 8:34 am

  36. Wild Ape:

    “I don’t like your tree humping, hug ISIS, white men suck fiction so I figure it all breaks even.”

    What book are you talking about? Was it on the long list?

    Comment by Hampus - August 24, 2015 8:48 am

  37. There was an op-ed piece in the August 9th NY Times that might be relevant here. In a piece titled, “Jon Stewart, Patron Saint of Liberal Smugness,” Gerard Alexander, an associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia, opined, “Many liberals, but not conservatives, believe there is an important asymmetry in American politics. These liberals believe that people on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum are fundamentally different. Specifically, they believe that liberals are much more open to change than conservatives, more tolerant of differences, more motivated by the public good and, maybe most of all, smarter and better informed. The evidence for these beliefs is not good. Liberals turn out to be just as prone to their own forms of intolerance, ignorance and bias. But the beliefs are comforting to many. They give their bearers a sense of intellectual and even moral superiority. And they affect behavior. They inform the condescension and self-righteousness with which liberals often treat conservatives.”

    Comment by NOLAbert - August 24, 2015 12:16 pm

  38. As somebody who leans right in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I have to take exception to some of your comments.

    I voted at Sasquan giving certain categories, but not all, No Award as my first choice where I found the written fiction not to be of Hugo quality. I attempted to read everything and found that there was much that I just could not read.

    I have edited 6 volumes of Poul Anderson fiction for NESFA Press among other titles. So yes, I like well-written space opera and adventure, the prime consideration being well-written. Sadly what was voted en bloc did not meat this high standard.

    Comment by Rick Katze - August 24, 2015 1:28 pm

  39. Obviously meant “meet”, not “meat.”

    Did not mean to end the comment.

    So write better and stop complaining that you lost simply because you are conservatives.

    I hear enough of that from liberals who utter the same comment.

    Comment by Rick Katze - August 24, 2015 1:34 pm

  40. Bear with me, folks, there’s a lot to reply to here and I’m on my lunch break…so I’m going to pack it all into one post.

    Pike: Guilt by association much? I do not consider Huckabee any of my first 30 or 40 choices for president, and his allies are irrelevant to that. I do not consider myself a survivalist or a neo-fascist, and while I think survivalists are overreacting to the world as they see it, that does not make them violent thugs unless and until they act as violent thugs do. As for not being able to relate to others, what makes the Tea Party (with which I am very much in sympathy) that? You seem to have bought into the MSM portrayal of the Tea Party, instead of what it truly is: people calling for a return to the Constiutional government of limited, enumerated powers and fiscal responsibility.

    Oh, and Wiener is a New York Democrat and the husband of one of Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers. Funny how the MSM never pointed that out, isn’t it?

    Orc: I hope you are right. That is, after all, the point I was trying to make, in opposition to John’s contention that the works were terrible and that’s why they got voted down en masse.

    Bruce: I hope you’re right about “The Hot Equations”, although Ken Burnside is on record as saying he didn’t think he’d win even without the whole Puppy business. I agree with you about Eric Raymond, too, though I have a healthy bias there, as I consider him a very good friend.

    Nick: You, too, guilt by association much? Remember one of Niven’s Laws: Ideas are not responsible for those who believe in them.

    The authors I have mentioned as being excellent have won Hugos, true – but not one this century. Neither has the widely hated Orson Scott Card, despite having accomplished the rare feat of winning two Best Novels back to back. I don’t know why Niven hasn’t, but I strongly suspect I will win a Hugo before Card wins another, because of Card’s politics that the true fans find heretical! Unclean! BURN!!!

    The applause may have happened for the reason you cite, but that does not lessen the joyous schadenfreude it represents.

    Amy: I’ll buy you the dinner of your choice the next time Card or Weber wins a Hugo. I’m not putting the money in escrow just yet.

    elemming: The Wired article is fully as slanted as the Breitbart article, just the other direction. (And yes, I did find the Breitbart article to be slanted.) I haven’t read the WSJ report yet.

    There is no such thing as Social Justice. It’s nothing more than a leftist codeword for equality of outcome, the most evil concept ever committed to paper (in the form “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”)…which has killed more people than any other political idea, Nazism included. Justice is not social, it’s individual. The American Way is precisely what the SJWs want to overturn.

    Peer: I think it’s safe to say that conservatives don’t like the kind of heavy-handed leftist message fiction that the in-crowd likes to produce and consume. I also think it’s safe to say that the average liberal doesn’t think much of Honor Harrington or “Lone Star Planet”.

    A few conservative nominees was what Sad Puppies 2 was about. They got shot down in flames, to raucous cheering and victory laps. That’s what brought on Sad Puppies 3.

    Wild Ape: Embrace? Meh. Engage in reasoned discourse with? I’ll do that with anyone, as long as that’s what I get back, and so far, that’s what I’ve gotten here.

    And I have gotten used to people not liking me and thinking I’m a joke. I learned that lesson fast and hard when the TRON costume first hit the net. Now, I don’t give a fuzzy rat’s ass what people think of me, and if they have a problem with me, that’s their problem, not mine.

    Rick: You and John seem to be on the short end of the stick here, compared to all of the people saying “it’s not about the politics, it’s about the slates, pure and simple”.

    I want to give Hampus’ comment the attention it deserves, but that will have to wait till this evening or so.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 2:02 pm

  41. First of all: Thanks for the discussion Jay!
    Then: I admit I dont know the history of the Puppy (the former slates). As I say before: Outside the US this divide is much less noisy.
    Which probably is part of the problem. The Hugos are awarded in WORLD Con and while many, many fans (and authors) are obviously from the US, there is abig part of fandom outside the US. And the “Liberal vs Conservative” is less of a dvide for the political lines are drawn different anywhere (A “Conservative” has different goals in Sweden, in the US or in Turkey) and perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, in other country people are more used to coalitions so the animosity might not be as stark?
    But that is leaving me with the question: Why making the Hugo Awards just about US politics and fans? About the _American_ way? I neither know your “Tron picture” (and dont want to google it after your comment) nor the politcial agendas of many authors and I frankly dont want to.
    Is that bad from your viewpoint? I never thought that my view as fandom as something universal is liberal but there you go 😉
    What Im saying is: I still believe most “No award”-voters backlashed against the slates _as such_ not against a political agenda (esp. the Non-US-Voters I believe, but thats just a hinch).

    BTW: the “Liberal” party in Germany is something very different from a “left” party. I just mention this because I guess it fits the point IM trying to make.

    Comment by peer - August 24, 2015 2:52 pm

  42. Brandon Sanderson doesn’t seem to draw any of this anti-conservative venom, and it’s not like he’s in the closet about it. Nobody hissed at him at his packed reading when he referred to himself as a “white Mormon dude”. I wasn’t present at his Magic the Gathering tournament but I doubt it happened there either.

    Comment by Calven - August 24, 2015 3:58 pm

  43. Engage in reasoned discourse with? I’ll do that with anyone, as long as that’s what I get back, and so far, that’s what I’ve gotten here.

    Jay, thank you for sticking with this. My points of disagreement and sideways/otherness from your view are expanding to the point where it would probably be more courteous of me to write my own post, rather than to go on at so much length in your comment thread. When I put that post together, I hope you and some of your right-leaning fellow-travelers will be part of the conversation.

    Wild Ape, thank you for the kind words about the award, and I do hope you’ll continue to be part of the BG community. There are very few Puppy supporters I feel that I can ask for clarification when I see declarations that just don’t make sense to me. Often, I go right on disagreeing, but I’d rather be right than wrong about what it is I’m disagreeing with.

    Comment by Sarah Avery - August 24, 2015 4:04 pm

  44. […] Black Gate: https://www.blackgate.com/2015/08/23/dear-conservatives-dont-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out/ […]

    Pingback by The Real Problem In SFF | The Arts Mechanical - August 24, 2015 6:27 pm

  45. @Rick and peer—-Look, there is nothing wrong with voting no award if you think the fiction does not merit a Hugo. Your opinion and vote count as much as mine does. I also don’t give a rip if you vote no award because it has some sort of Puppy or conservative taint. In fact, I don’t expect civility from the anti-Puppies at all but it would be nice if they were civil. I have heard several comments and such on why some work was not as good as the puppy work. Just because Phil Sandifer says something does not make it golden and true in everyone’s eyes. Personally, I wouldn’t trust his answer if I asked him what time it was. I don’t think he could pour piss out of a boot even if the directions were written on the bottom.

    @Hampus—-I didn’t vote for or read the entire “Transhuman and Subhuman” essay. I thought the work was basically fundamental Christian perspective from a sector that I disagree with philisophically for the most part. I did however read Anita Sarkasian’s work and I am delighted that that piece of garbage never saw the light of a Hugo. She is a liar and makes a living playing the victim of sexual politics. She is a fraud. Whatever faults that “Transhuman and Subhuman” had I would gladly rate it better than hers. It did get a lot of votes. I know that a lot of Puppies are tired of getting ramrodded (no pun intended) by the GLBT community and that vote could be blowback. I don’t know.

    The thing is Hampus, I have nothing to apologize for being a conservative. There is nothing in my philosophy that dehumanizes people.

    “What book are you talking about? Was it on the long list?”

    You’ve heard of hyperbole right? Or satire? But if you really want a list:

    “Poison Fairies” by Luca Tarenzi versus “The Toxic Spell Dump” by Harry Turtledove. Poison Fairies is already being buzzed about. I read it. It is okay but nothing compared to “The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump” which got no notice at all.

    “Throne of the Crescent Moon” by Saladin Ahmed versus “The Desert of Souls”by Howard Andrew Jones. Saladin Ahmed is a clown and the story is so-so but because he is who he is this got wide attention. “The Desert of Souls was much better but received little notice.

    It really doesn’t matter. I plan to keep fighting for what I like. I don’t care if you no award it or vote it down or lie about it or give what I support its due. NOTHING that you have put forward has convinced me to go back to playing nice nice with y’all. When I do, it just gets worse.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 24, 2015 6:36 pm

  46. isn’t vernor vinge right-wing libertarian?

    Comment by kim philby - August 24, 2015 6:40 pm

  47. I don’t know, Kim, and this brings up a related point. Calven mentioned Brandon Sanderson earlier. I don’t know him, but I do know another member of the LDS Church (I refuse to use the term “Mormon”, since some consider it insulting, and I refuse to insult another’s faith in that manner), Schlock Mercenary‘s Howard Tayler. I like to think of Howard as a good friend and wish I could spend more time hanging out with him. He’s a great guy.

    But you wouldn’t know of his religion by reading his works. He doesn’t bring it up himself in conversation, though he’ll cheerfully talk about it all you want to – if you ask. It’s pretty much completely absent from Schlock, though. (Well, there was one joke about the BH-209M plasma cannon: the M stood for “Mormon”, because it couldn’t take being dunked in alcohol. Sergeant Schlock got a BH-209I instead when his quit working.)

    I think this factors into the fact that Howard has a rocket on his mantelpiece. (Sadly, not for Schlock, though. He got one for the writing blog he and others do, Writing Excuses.) It’s a lot easier for the SJWs to vote for someone who doesn’t insert his conservative politics or his religion into his work. Would that they would learn that lesson going the other way…

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 6:51 pm

  48. but frankly you could tell from vinge’s work, especially short stories, what is his political stance. that didn’t stop him from winning two hugos.

    i think that the main premise of puppies drive, that they are being kept away from awards because of their politics, is simply not true. when i look at the past winners and nominees i see diverse lot of politics and aesthetics and not political uravnilovka you claim. it also goes without saying that i think it is somewhat preposterous to claim that jo walton winning hugo will end american way of life.

    but, i agree with you mr. maynard on one point and that is that card is unlikely to win one more hugo. maybe you should have saved your strength to fight for recognition of the fact that cards work deserves recognition no matter what his politics are.

    of course, it wouldn’t be the first time that one SF author was ostracized due to his or hers perceived political beliefs. for example stanislaw lem was cast out of SFWA after paranoid and feverish campaign that claimed, among other things, that he was a member of that society in order to subvert american writers to communism.

    when bemused lem commented on those charges he remarked that:…the letters published in “fanzines” show that SF books are often merely an excuse, a possibility of mutual contact for people that are socially alienated and frustrated, and for whom being part of “fandom” means a vital compensation.[end of quote]

    so yes we fans are obviously, if puppies affair proves anything, still alienated and frustrated but let’s at least make sf books a good excuse instead of “merely an excuse”. we can judge books on their literary merits and not if someone is a clown.

    Comment by kim philby - August 24, 2015 8:38 pm

  49. It sounds as if you are arguing that it is just a remarkable coincidence that Vox Day and the Sad Puppies released very similar slates, back to back. Do you really think that is the case?

    Ideas aren’t responsible for who believes in them, of course — but you’re responsible for your allies. Do you remember Torgerson’s quote about how Correira is Churchill, Torgerson is FDR, and Vox Day is Stalin?

    Who did Churchill, FDR, and Stalin fight against? That’s what Torgerson called the fans whose votes carried the day yesterday. A man who says things like that attracts cheers when he goes down. Does he speak for you?

    Also — if you accept my description of why people would cheer, then it isn’t schadenfreude. It’s happiness at finding out the fan community is what people thought it was.

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 24, 2015 8:59 pm

  50. No, Nick, I don’t think it’s a coincidence. What I think is that Vox Day grabbed the Sad Puppies slate – which, it should not be forgotten, came first – and adopted it as his own.

    No Torgerson wasn’t comparing the true fans to Hitler and his minions. If anything, a comparison to, say, Hugo Chavez would be more apt. As Heinlein observed, analogy is always suspect.

    And no, I do not accept your explanation as the only reason people would cheer, and as I asked John on another post, how are we to tell the difference?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 9:05 pm

  51. As far as Card winning Hugos, he has won 2 or 3 (Ender’s Game, Speaker for the Dead, and possibly for a writing book). Not sure if Weber has ever won a Hugo or not. Nivin is fairly conservative and I’m pretty sure he won at least one Hugo, for Ringworld and another for “Neutron Star”. Granted, those various awards were between the 60’s and the 80’s, but it still proves it is possible.

    Comment by Amy Bisson - August 24, 2015 9:06 pm

  52. Amy, that just serves to back up the Puppies’ point: the changes in political voting patterns are recent. That those awards were between the 60s and the 80s is precisely the point. None of that would win now.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 9:07 pm

  53. Jay –

    Eric James Stone won a Nebula in 2010 for his VERY overtly religious “That Leviathan, Whom Thou Hast Made.” I know that’s not a Hugo, but given how many puppies have said the Nebulas are too SWJish, it seems fair to mention.

    The comic book series Fables has been nominated for four Hugos, and although it’s not at all “message fiction,” it’s obvious from reading the books that the writer has libertarian politics and thinks liberals are soft-hearted dupes. Admittedly, Fables never won, but that’s because it got run over by the Girl Genius streamroller three years in a row, not because everyone was like “BILL WILLINGHAM IS A CONSERVATIVE WE MUST VOTE HIM DOWN BECAUSE WE ARE EVIL SWJs.”

    I could list a whole bunch more conservatives who have been nominated for the Hugo or otherwise honored in the SF community, but George Martin has already covered that much more thoroughly than I could. It’s simply, factually not true that conservatives don’t have a shot.

    It’s probably true Orson Scott Card no longer has a shot – but not because he’s a conservative. It’s because he has taken truly extreme and hateful stances, such as arguing that “laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books” so they won’t be “permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens.”

    That position would appall most of the conservatives I know; and it’s not fair of you to implicitly assume that because I hold that and similar statements against Card, I must therefore be against conservatives in general.

    Although of course some liberal fans dislike conservative fans – and vice versa – in my experience, most fans are actually pretty nice people. The “no awards” were not, for most voters, about hating conservatives. Many “no award” voters have said we want conservative writers and fans in the community, but we object to slates being used to lock out non-slates voters from having a voice, and to give slate voters power over the nominations vastly disproportionate to their numbers.

    Regarding the applause: If I had been in the room I would have applauded. (I did applaud at home.) Because “No Award,” this year, was to a great extent an referendum on slate voting. (That’s how I treated it when I voted.) When slate voting was rejected decisively, that was a HUGE relief to me – I felt like a baseball fan whose team has just won the World Series. It was an almost physical rush of relief and joy, from my toes to my hair.

    And yes, in the moment, I was thrilled about the victory, just as the baseball fan applauding doesn’t think about how sad that moment is for the opposing players. Condemning us for that is unfair.

    P.S.:

    Oh, and Wiener is a New York Democrat and the husband of one of Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers. Funny how the MSM never pointed that out, isn’t it?

    Not germane to this discussion, but… Abedin’s marriage is routinely pointed out in MSM stories about her. An example from today’s New York Times: “Ms. Abedin — who is married to former Representative Anthony D. Weiner, who resigned from Congress in June 2011…” Similarly, Weiner’s party affiliation is mentioned in countless MSM stories about him. (Is there anyone who reads newspapers who doesn’t know Weiner is a Democrat?)

    Comment by barrydeutsch - August 24, 2015 9:58 pm

  54. Wild Ape wrote:

    In the Sad Puppy world there is room for all. We may not like your ideas or your fiction but we are not calling for your extinction or your exclusion. Therein is the difference.

    You guys literally tried to lock everyone else from having any voice at all in the Hugo nomination process (and you succeeded in five categories). You literally excluded all other Hugo fans from having a say.

    There is not any example of anti-Slate folks doing that to conservative fans. You guys, and you guys alone, have acted in a way that locks other fans out.

    I don’t think he could pour piss out of a boot even if the directions were written on the bottom.

    LOL! I may have to swipe that from you.

    Comment by barrydeutsch - August 24, 2015 10:08 pm

  55. “You guys literally tried to lock everyone else from having any voice at all in the Hugo nomination process (and you succeeded in five categories). You literally excluded all other Hugo fans from having a say.”

    You mean you didn’t get to vote? Don’t blame me for your lack of partisanship. Maybe you don’t like your writers much or you couldn’t afford the price of a vote.

    “LOL! I may have to swipe that from you”

    I was a Drill Sargent back when they could still be pretty rough. It wasn’t original but I heard it once or twice or used it back in the day. Trust me, I have much better ones. That is probably the nearest I can make it to the censors. I’m glad it amused you Barry. You must have a sense of humor. Let me tell you something: Full Metal Jacket in the boot camp segment. That is what boot camp was really like. That was barely an act that Lee Ermey did—he did it all off the script.

    @Sarah, I don’t know if I will continue to be here with as much frequency. When I am here I will hope to say hello. I haven’t started reading your book but I will soon. I am very happy that you have been successful, kind, and filled with intelligent discourse. I think you are a class act.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 24, 2015 10:34 pm

  56. I’m sorry but the ‘conservative’ issue is something of a red herring.

    I was at the Convention – I watched in the bar at Guinan’s and yes, I cheered. Words are actually bad for describing the collective sigh of relief that actually regular Worldcon fans had stood up in great numbers and said hell no. I was one of those that actually did read most of the works, or as much of them as I could stomach, because, let’s be honest with each other, much of the fiction put forward was complete dreck. Kary English and Lou Antonelli had the least bad of the works, but they weren’t terribly original. I hope for great things from Kary in the future, but I think Lou Antonelli will have more problems.

    I didn’t vote in the Best Editor categories – I hadn’t read enough of the works in the anthologies to really know if they did a great job and I honestly have no basis by which to vote for the long form category.

    Where I agreed with the slates – Guardians of the Galaxy – I voted accordingly.

    This has nothing at all to do with politics.

    On the non-puppy side are a LOT of conservatives too – Mike Resnick of that wretched hive of scum and villainy is pretty conservative. There are also a lot of conservatives who can write books that will easily get on the ballot, Vinge being one of them. On the other side of that there are plenty of British ‘conservatives’ who write cracking SF who never get Hugo nods either.

    Which brings me to my last point: with all due respect to the Americans here, it’s not all about you. It’s a Worldcon, I am not an American, half the Worldcons I’ve attended haven’t been in the United States. I honestly don’t care which of America’s two right of center parties you cast your votes for – by British standards I don’t find John Scalzi to be particularly left wing.

    How in the hell are we meant to have mind expanding fiction or even realistic alien cultures when you want to read and write about unrealistic human societies? It’s beyond me.

    Comment by daveon - August 24, 2015 11:17 pm

  57. > Which brings me to my last point: with all due respect to the Americans here, it’s not all about you. It’s a Worldcon, I am
    > not an American, half the Worldcons I’ve attended haven’t been in the United States. I honestly don’t care which of America’s
    > two right of center parties you cast your votes for

    Ha! Right you are, Daveon. Well said.

    Comment by John ONeill - August 24, 2015 11:21 pm

  58. Thank you, Daveon — I appreciate your input. What’s happening here is a bait and switch (in my opinion). The Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies picked a fight, about which their blogs are explicit, arguing that they represented a silent majority. That was proven to be untrue.
    So what exactly do they want? It seems to me that they want to be excused from being judged. The don’t want their fiction judged, and they don’t want their actions judged, and they don’t want to be judged by their allies (Vox Day), or by their statements, which apparently are analogies. They don’t want to be judged by the fact that they have pejorative nicknames for the people they’re fighting against.
    Neither is it certain what they want. Apparently, they don’t want to win Hugos, since all three of the leaders have spent the few days since the vote congratulating each other on victory.
    I’d like to propose that since the SPs and RPs feel that they’ve won; and the people who attended the convention and voted their nominations below No Award feel like they’ve won; that there actually isn’t any reason for acrimony any more. The traditionalist faction has proposed a new voting proposal that should weaken slates, and I believe both sides feel that is a good idea — so as of 2017, works really will be judged entirely on their literary merit, and not on how much coordinated support they can muster. Isn’t that a good thing?

    Comment by Nick never Nick - August 24, 2015 11:30 pm

  59. As I asked above, Nick: guilt by association much?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 11:34 pm

  60. While looking through some earlier comments, I noticed that Peer said:

    Amy wrote that the only reason “No award” was voted was because “we” hate conservatives

    Actually that was pretty much the exact opposite of what I was saying. I was saying that because of the difficulty of reading every short story, novelette, novella, novel, and blog on the list, as well as watching every podcast, television episode, and movie on the list, once it became clear that some of the puppy selections were subpar or even dreck it became easier to vote against the puppy slates. I suspect that if the majority of the works on the puppy slates had been of the same quality that usually makes the Hugo ballot, most people wouldn’t have cared if a given work was puppy or not puppy. It was the quality of the work, not the politics that made it so that 5 No Awards were given.

    Comment by Amy Bisson - August 24, 2015 11:41 pm

  61. Amy, if you were right, TeriToni Weisskopf would have a rocket right now.

    (edit to correct Toni’s name…argh.)

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 24, 2015 11:42 pm

  62. Between EPH AND 4/6 AND removing the 5% rule, which is problematic in categories with a long tail, I think we will solve the nomination bug that emerged this year.

    The thing is, you still need enough people to vote, so, the key thing is – you need to write stuff that people actually want to vote for :)

    Comment by daveon - August 24, 2015 11:43 pm

  63. By the way, at the Worldcon meeting, when Ben Yalow, who had won the “Big Heart” award the previous day, rose to debate against the E Pluribus Union proposal. When he was identified, there was thunderous applause throughout the room. They paused the timekeeping to allow the room to clap for him.

    Now, I have no idea what Yalow’s politics are. But he was speaking against a proposal that the large majority of the people in the room voted for. And the room loved him.

    I’m not saying that there isn’t real acrimony, or that people are never rude. But acrimony and rudeness isn’t the whole story.

    Comment by barrydeutsch - August 25, 2015 2:34 am

  64. Sorry Amy, I meant Jay said basiccly said that. I agreed with you which might be the reason I attributed your name to the quote – Sorry!

    And beacuse Im supposed to like/hate certain books: Im not happy with the winners of the Hugos of 14, 13 and 12. My favorite SF-books of the last decade (Annihilation, Anathem and The Martian) werent even on the ballots (I also like historical military fiction, but I didnt read any SF militrary ficition lately that I like). But I dont think my taste is representative, I wont put up any slates…

    Comment by peer - August 25, 2015 2:57 am

  65. No problem, Peer.

    Comment by Amy Bisson - August 25, 2015 5:32 am

  66. “Amy, if you were right, Teri Weisskopf would have a rocket right now”
    Maybe, Maybe not.
    Ive read commentary both ways so I dont think its a given. We will never know. Taking it as a sign for one way or the other is a bit of a stretch in my book.
    Guardians of the galaxy HAS won despite the slates so could be taken as an argument against your case and as a point for Amy.

    In the end the discussion is moot. Some have voted against the puppies (without doubt), some have voted for them (without doubt), some tried to remain neutral and voted for the works they like best (without doubt). What we dont know are the percentages of these three groups. Do they matter?

    Comment by peer - August 25, 2015 6:35 am

  67. Oh and please correct me if Im wrong: But wasnt Addison a sad puppy slate, that wasnt on the rabid puppy slate, while Weiskopf was on both slates?
    That would further strengthen my point that the backlash was first and formost aginst the rabid puppies.
    Addison finished above No award (and deservingly so) even if she didnt win (which was OK I guess – three body problem is a great book)

    Comment by peer - August 25, 2015 8:17 am

  68. Jay: All right, Jeff, I must be dense. Please explain to me how conservatives aren’t demonized int he public discourse every day.

    Explain to me how any group isn’t demonized every day. But that wasn’t what I was referring to. After the post, I realized I should have edited the quote down to just “Conservatives are… We…”

    First, because you think there’s a difference in behavior between conservatives and non-conservatives. There isn’t. There’s just people, good and bad, and the issues that trigger them individually or as a mob.

    Have you read Larry Correia’s blog post “The Left Wing Internet Arguing Checklist”? Edit out “left wing” and you have an excellent description of anonymous comment threads on most large sites. Left, right, up, down–they’re all the same.

    Second, because you think opposition to the Puppies is a conservative/liberal issue.

    Which leads me to…

    guilt by association much?

    Guilt by association was at the heart of your opening post, and has been your theme through the comments. You are an individual and not to be associated with the bad deeds of those the some see you as being politically aligned with, but everyone who opposes you is all part of the same evil group.

    Comment by Jeff Stehman - August 25, 2015 8:33 am

  69. And with that, Jay, I’ll bow out of this comment thread, as it seems quite the dog pile since I was last here. John can put you in touch with me if you want me to reply to something, although you might find me in the comments on another post.

    Comment by Jeff Stehman - August 25, 2015 8:36 am

  70. I do think that opposition to the Puppies is largely a conservative/liberal issue. To me, it’s the reaction of an in-crowd saturated with groupthink to someone challenging that groupthink. The claim is that the Hugos, and WSFS, represent all of fandom – but it’s only that part of fandom that values the leftist goals of diversity for its own sake and political correctness. They got called on that, and rose up in indignation and outright anger, and with great glee when it became apparent they won. They want nothing less than to grind conservative thought under their boot heel.

    But when I speak of guilt by association, I’m not referring to that. I’m referring specifically to being told that I support Vox Day’s misogyny and John C. Wright’s homophobia. (Which, itself, is a term I find inapt; I doubt Wright is afraid of homosexuality. I use it here in response to another’s use.) It’s the accusation that since I agree with them about some things, I support all of their ideas, which I explicitly do not, and have denounced more than once right here on BG.

    Remember, folks, ideas are not responsible for those who hold them, and nobody’s perfect, not even perfectly wrong.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 9:48 am

  71. Nobody can make statements like ‘if it was just down to quality, X would have a rocket by now’ – there are plenty of writers, editors, artists and more who generate quality work year in year out and never get a rocket – it’s a popular vote. I almost certainly will never vote for Toni but it has nothing to do with politics – it is simply I do not feel qualified to vote in the category and have never done so. Should I get back to writing and have some reference on editing, I might change that.

    Getting a nomination should be honour enough.

    As GRRM pointed out early on in this mess – it isn’t actually about lifting the rocket – just having the honour should be enough.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 10:49 am

  72. So Jay, Mike Resnick is a Liberal?

    As has been said Ad Nauseum, this isn’t about politics – I don’t much care about the politics of the people proposing stuff I care about two things.

    1) They gamed the system proving that there was no vast conspiracy before hand doing so

    2) The quality of the work proposed was god awful by any objective criteria

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 10:51 am

  73. Yeah, just getting the honor should be enough…until people like David Gerrold demean it by handing out laser-carved wooden asterisks. I don’t blame Toni Weisskopf one iota for walking out of the ceremony after an asterisk joke.

    But, Dave, you’re trying to have it both ways, and the data doesn’t support it. If it was about quality with no NO AWARD slate voting, there wouldn’t have been 2500 NO AWARD votes to beat out Toni Weisskopf. Simple, inarguable fact.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 2:55 pm

  74. As you damn well know Jay there was no honour at all with this year. None.

    As it happens, I have heard editors point out that she did not, in fact, provide a body of work for review and therefore I can’t actually say if she was any good or not.

    I think Sheila Gilbert has a MUCH better claim, and sadly she was caught up in being put on a slate she didn’t ask for.

    You want a fact: don’t cheat and then get upset when people call you on it.

    Toni has been nominated before without having slates – which rather makes your point moot.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 3:23 pm

  75. “Toni has been nominated before without having slates”

    Yes, she has. She got beaten by Patrick Nielsen-Hayden every time. She has the severe handicap of working for Baen instead of Tor; Baen doesn’t send employees to Worldcon with ballots in their hands.

    But let’s go with your argument for Sheila Gilbert. She’s in pretty much the same position. Doesn’t that rather undermine your own argument?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 25, 2015 3:26 pm

  76. Jay,

    ” I’m referring specifically to being told that I support Vox Day’s misogyny and John C. Wright’s homophobia.”

    Just to make sure there has not been a misunderstanding, I have NOT said that you support Wrights homophobia, sexism and misogyny. I have no idea how you have nominated or voted.

    What I DO say is that both puppy parties had put a work that was filled with rampant homophobia, sexism and misogyny on their slates. That tells me one of two things:

    a) Either the puppy organizers have a high tolerance for homophobia, sexism and misogyny.

    OR

    b) They hadn’t read what they nomineed and voted for.

    This is what I have said. Nothing else. And now afterwards all puppies want to avoid talking about Wright. THEY didn’t read him. THEY shouldn’t be associated with him. THEY didn’t nominate him.

    But would he have been nominated if the leaders of the movements didn’t put his hate screed on their slates? No.

    And my god, if you voted for Hugo, didn’t you at least read the work before voting? If you didn’t read it, how can you have any opinions whatsoever about the quality of the nominees or about the Hugo voting.

    If you didn’t read what was nominated, why should we listen to you?

    Comment by Hampus - August 25, 2015 3:52 pm

  77. Not really Jay, at least not for me personally, as I don’t actually vote in the editor categories because I don’t actually know what criteria I am meant to be voting on.

    Can we also quit the ‘Tor wins’ nonsense because it’s quite obvious that relative to their size, if they’re paying for employee ballots it’s making damn all difference.

    As I’ve also said before, if you’re on the ballot fairly, it doesn’t really matter who wins, the honour is more in the nomination.

    If you really think that she deserved to beat PNH in 2013 though, could you provide me with a list of the books they both edited and the original manuscripts so we could decide for ourselves – otherwise this conversation is completely pointless.

    Comment by daveon - August 25, 2015 4:20 pm

  78. Oh, and Jay:

    “She has the severe handicap of working for Baen instead of Tor; Baen doesn’t send employees to Worldcon with ballots in their hands.”

    You are absolutely welcome to shut the door in your face if you continue with those lies and conspiracy theories. How the heck could you ever expect to feel welcome somewhere if you come with that kind of stupid and baseless attacks?

    That just isn’t ok.

    Comment by Hampus - August 25, 2015 4:44 pm

  79. Wild Ape at 5:42 pm 8/23:

    And be glad that the Rabid Puppies ran a slate. Check out that post put above on who would have won:
    https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/2015-hugo-stats-initial-analysis/ So what if they No Awarded Best Related Work. It knocked Anita Sarkeesian off the list. Is there any doubt that the hate weasel of the femin-nazis would not have won the Hugo? And best editor go to Patrick Nielsen-Hayden—AGAIN? Or John Scalzi win AGAIN? All those three were bumped by the Rabid Puppies. Scalzi is not any where near the writer of Heinlein, Azimov, or Philip K. Dick caliber. I think there you will find the Tor editor’s true anger about the Rabid Puppies. Way to go Rabids!

    Ape, you are a LIAR. You did not read anything by Sarkeesian, because you can’t even describe what she said. All you are doing is frothing at the mouth over how much you dislike her. Her work is the most vanilla Feminism 101 ever, there is nothing to object to unless you are opposed to the idea that women are people. It bothers me that you have such a visceral reaction to something you have OBVIOUSLY never read.

    I will prove it. Where did you read her entry? Under what circumstances? How did you find it? I am positive you never read it and are uncritically repeating garbage you read elsewhere from critics.

    Comment by cathy from encino - August 26, 2015 2:24 pm

  80. Whoops, forgot to quote Ape where they said they read Sarkeesian:

    @Hampus—-I didn’t vote for or read the entire “Transhuman and Subhuman” essay. I thought the work was basically fundamental Christian perspective from a sector that I disagree with philisophically for the most part. I did however read Anita Sarkasian’s work and I am delighted that that piece of garbage never saw the light of a Hugo. She is a liar and makes a living playing the victim of sexual politics. She is a fraud. Whatever faults that “Transhuman and Subhuman” had I would gladly rate it better than hers. It did get a lot of votes. I know that a lot of Puppies are tired of getting ramrodded (no pun intended) by the GLBT community and that vote could be blowback. I don’t know.

    LIE. Utter pathetic LIE, Ape. I can prove it, too. LIAR.

    Comment by cathy from encino - August 26, 2015 2:26 pm

  81. Jay, I think it’d be a damn shame for you to decide based on some people’s response to slate voting that you’re unwelcome–dude, you’re Tron guy. You’d be welcome at *any* Worldcon.

    As is Robert Silverberg, a known conservative and the guy who was given the honor of giving the opening speech (he’s the Hare Krishna guy). As is Mike Resnick, who has more Hugos and nominations than any living human (8 and 50).

    It’s important to note that Toni Weisskopf gave the Hugo voters very little to work with in the packet; her submission was literally “we group edit at Baen. Here’s Baen books,” followed by a link, which gave the voters nothing to work with. I know lots of people are fans of her work, and she’s hard-working; she just needs to give people who don’t personally know her some way to evaluate her work against other editors in a category.

    I -do- think there’s something to your distinction between conservative and LOUD conservative, and a very important one–clearly the Hugos aren’t biased against conservatives. I mean, Correia and Torgersen were both Campbell nominees, which is a HUGE deal. Sometimes people who are LOUD about their politics in person come across as jerks, and it’s harder for people to vote for a jerk. But Silverberg, Sanderson, Resnick, Virge and the pre-Puppy nominations for Larry and Brad ought to be enough evidence that conservatives are welcome at Worldcon and win and get nominated for Hugos. (Remember, too, not to confuse loud online with loud in person; Scalzi may be loudish on his blog, but he’s friendly to everyone in person at the Cons.)

    They are certainly biased against people who conduct a rules exploit.

    Anyway, there’s no obligation for you to come to MidAmericaCon, but I hope you change your mind, because I think you’d have a much better time. Frack, you tell people you’re the Tron guy and offer to be on a panel, I expect they’ll put you on.

    Comment by gregm52246 - August 26, 2015 3:54 pm

  82. Can I also repeat something related to Scalzi. Remember that ‘world’ in WorldCon? The bits that aren’t the USA? Well by their standards actually John Scalzi comes across as pretty damn centrist, if not slightly right of centre. Sure he’s pretty liberal on a bunch of social issues, but frankly, if that’s the ground American ‘conservatives’ really REALLY want to fight on then they’re done, and not just in comparison to the rest of us.

    I’m a small business owner, I have studied economics, my mother was a British conservative small town mayor – apparently by US conservative standards I’m somewhere to the left of Lenin. I’m fairly sure John Scalzi is to my right, and by British standards I’m right of center. I’m a HUGE Vinge fan, massive Silverberg fan (I had a genuine fanboi moment at Chicon when I found myself talking to him at the bar), I think Mike Glyer has done a great job and based on what we talked about at Sasquan he’s far to my right. It’s not the politics, it’s the intent and the result.

    If you go to an event where people from all over the planet are attending and make statements based on your US centric political views, you will run into people who will find them pretty damn objectionable, especially if there is a faith based component where people outside of the US run to being generally less religious (see some of John C Wright’s arguments) – if you want to loudly decry climate change, you’re going to find a lot of resistance, if you want to debate the merits of the SF, you’ll find a lot of people who’ll be happy to have a beer/coffee/whatever and do so.

    You want real pain – I suggest attending Worldcon75 and going on about how crappy social democracy is and how America protects the world. The Finns are a naturally taciturn people, but I am sure you’d get a response :)

    Anyway, I’m the last person to say ‘can’t we all just get alone’ – but in this case, assuming and arguing politics at a global event with a lot of Europeans there isn’t ever going to endear you.

    Comment by daveon - August 26, 2015 6:57 pm

  83. Greg, I just looked at the information for the KC Worldcon. Kansas City is an 8-hour drive from where I live, so it’s not too horrible…

    but then, da-yum, $170 registration, and hotels that’ll probably be at least $150 a night for six nights (because being in a different hotel from the room parties never works as well as one would expect, and the Marriott won’t be any $119 a night), and a solid week of vacation…

    That’s a hell of a lot to wager on having a good time in the face of, at best, dubious experience. And there’s a growing number of people who’ll likely be there that I will not feel that I can engage with because of their actions this year, Scalzi most definitely among them.

    And when was the last time Silverberg or Resnick won a Hugo?

    Dave, I am fully aware that European politics is far to the left of American politics. Indeed, there’s a commenter on my G+ I have to remind constantly that, when I’m discussion American politics, his contention that all Americans are at the right end of the scale is completely irrelevant. I have no intention of doing the reverse. in Helsinki, London, or anywhere else. (If I’m going to visit Helsinki, I’m not going to do it for an SF con unless I have a LOT more reason to believe I’ll have fun.)

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 26, 2015 7:36 pm

  84. I can’t tell if you’ll have fun or not. But it is expensive, I’d guess that in total, with the hotel and flights, I probably dropped $1500 on Sasquan. I don’t regret a penny mind you.

    But back to the substantive. We are discussing GLOBAL Science Fiction and Fantasy, the fact is, the world and fans from outside the United States are significantly to the left of American Conservatives is relevant. You’re complaining that fandom is not welcoming to Conservatives – there are plenty of conservatives in Science Fiction but I can assure you constantly being called a ‘liberal’, or ‘social justice warrior’ or other names because you’re considered a lefty gets pretty damn tiring too.

    It is the World Science Fiction and Fantasy Society who administer the Worldcon and the Hugo Awards – what a small number of American Conservatives demand has no bearing on what that group collectively want. The genie is well and truly out of that bottle and a damn good thing too.

    Comment by daveon - August 26, 2015 8:39 pm

  85. @cathy—-Anita Sarkasian is a fraud. Her entire harassment diatribe was debunked. Don’t take my word for it. Watch it for yourself:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQW-NvtAEs

    After exposing her lies and distortions she has no credibility whatsoever with me. I listened to her interviews and she masterfully creates sympathy and stirs up anger with her crowd. After she was debunked it is clear how she makes a living: She stirs up feminists so that they donate money to her. The media feeds on it and she makes a living perpetuating her victimization, spreading hatred, and division between genders. She sounds like she is channeling Mein Kampf’s author. She is a liar.

    Cathy, calling me a liar doesn’t phase me a bit. Basically I know that when she moves her lips, she lies. Again, watch the video and judge for yourself. Go against the judgement of police who are experts in assessing threats and receive training in terrorism if you wish. I too have had real life experience with terrorism and it was obvious to even a novice that the threat was not real.

    It was your side Cathy that invoked Gamersgate first, not Vox Day. The proof is now in the record. If you do like studying SJW tactics then Sarkasian is a must read. The piece is hilariously and stupid but a classic example of how they operate. I will say that her technique is masterful on how to manipulate the partisan believers and the uninformed.

    Cathy, you should send her your entire paycheck. Living on donations and Top Ramen would be worth it for the cause. Please, don’t let the video cloud your mind. Thank you, your post made my day.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 26, 2015 10:27 pm

  86. @Jay–I had a couple of friends among a group of friends and we would meet and hold BBQs frequently with all of us, you know, watch football, share our home brewed beer, and just have fun. It was a big pack and they still are a lot of fun.

    Anyway, there would frequently be BBQ cookoffs and we’d sample brisket, or smoke a turkey or something and enjoy the day, at one point it became a friendly competition.

    Anyway, one of these friends, Paul, was a very good critic. He would sample everything and he would give his honest assessment of what was made. He was much like Rich Horton in that Horton reads things, like he read our list and some selections met his mark and others did not. Rich is respected in his own circle and therefore has credibility. Now when Paul, or Rich, critique something they don’t say things out of spite or to make the author or cook feel bad. They just say it so that the author or cook can improve their technique. So if you met Paul or Rich’s standard then it is probable that most people would agree that what was sampled was good.

    My other friend, Stan, was another in our circle that was a tough critic. The thing about Stan is that he also cooked and for him if he said it was good then he took objection if any disagreed with him. I noticed that when others, even Rich gave something the thumbs up then Stan would argue and sometimes his reasons were absurd. It was just a friendly cook off after all.

    You see, Stan’s close friends were people that he felt were inferior to him. He liked having them around because they supported him and boosted his ego. Some of my friends grew frustrated because nothing they ever did was good enough for Stan. But this was friends gathering after all and not an episode of Chopped. Stan liked to throw BBQs at his house and on his home turf, we were polite and no one wants to cause friction among friends. After a while Paul never showed up at Stan’s, which was weird because a lot of us went way back to when we served together. What happened was Stan didn’t invite Paul and Paul got to thinking that we didn’t want him around anymore. It was silly for this to happen, but that is how it went down. After Paul left friction grew between Stan and the next “top dog” and then that friend would fade from the gathering. I didn’t notice at first but I did miss the times with Paul. It was then that I caught on that Stan was about Stan and his friends were people that Stan felt superior to. When a friend was absent I noticed that Stan didn’t have much nice things to say about the absent member of our group. Of course, I couldn’t make every BBQ but when I didn’t some of the boys mentioned that Stan didn’t have good things to say in my absence. It hurt but I found out that Stan wasn’t really my friend. He looked at me as an inferior. That hurt too. Stan did not respect me.

    Fast forward a few years and the gang still gathers round and we still have a good time. Once in a while Stan joins us and asks why some of us don’t come over to his place. He also gets frustrated and he talks a lot about his new friends who are of course important people. He is a little miffed that we are not impressed. Stan doesn’t get that it is about the friendship and the company and the BBQ is good even if the least of our cooks are at the grill. A lot of us, including myself, don’t call Stan a friend. He never really was. After we started treating him as a equal he faded from our company. You see, Stan didn’t want a circle of equals or friends.

    I think that is how Truefans see us. Whereas I see that picture of you in the Tron costume and it makes me smile; Truefans see a wimponaut or something derrogatory. You will never measure up to their respectability. You will never be considered their equal. So long as you mind your place they will allow your company. They will NEVER EVER share power or control with you.

    Jay, you would be welcome at our BBQ any time.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 26, 2015 11:15 pm

  87. @daveon—I’ll say that during this I have, as you have said, viewed this through an American perspective and not a global one. That makes better sense in explaining why the hell there are so many liberals. When centrists are considered socialists I would agree with you that liberals would be to the right of most of European thinking. Perhaps my paradigm is skewed as well as what would resonate with your thinking.

    I’m also in total agreement with you about “Can’t we all get along?” For me, if we can’t get along—let’s get it on. Because surely, if you can’t engage in civility, what is the point? When you applaud humiliation and derision the Hugo nominees then I don’t see any reason whatsoever to toss aside my values and become cuckhold to your barbarity. Your side is not a benevolent dictatorship and I think my lucky stars that my ancestors left Europe and came here. I regret that my relatives poured out their lifeblood in your fields. I am especially moved about your comment on how put out you are about how America protects the world. Hey, I think we should stay home and let you all sort out that Nazi-Communist schism or whatever other troubles you have. Feel free to leave us out of your mess next time around. Don’t get me wrong. I certainly enjoyed my time in Europe when I was in the military. I like the people over there and y’all are fun to visit but y’all belong over there and we belong here.

    I suppose we have to share SF/F but that is okay. You guys come up with good reading sometimes. I may not like some of the new SF/F but it is just an opinion. I used to be open minded about what I read. After this year, not so much. You’ve given me no reason to be reasonable with you.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 27, 2015 12:03 am

  88. Wildape: the guy who ran the WFSF business meeting this year is a cos player. He regularly dresses as a Startship Captain or rocketeer with a steampunk vibe. He built an entire set up to host an SF version of The Match Game.

    In other words, I honestly don’t think you know enough about the people you’re against to comment.

    Comment by daveon - August 27, 2015 12:04 am

  89. Wild Ape: so here’s the thing, it’s the WorldCon, it moves around, and you’re welcome to the field we helped create. If you’re not reading the likes of Asher, Banks, Hamilton and others you’re missing out.

    Oh and you guys are welcome for my lot holding the Germans off for a few years while you all naval glazed. My parents were glad you eventually decided to join in.

    Finally, and the biggest reason why I really think you’re talking utter tosh, I live in the USA. I might even stay, but you’re not even the majority opinion in your own country let along a shared genre no matter how much you splutter about it.

    Comment by daveon - August 27, 2015 12:15 am

  90. Jay:

    “(If I’m going to visit Helsinki, I’m not going to do it for an SF con unless I have a LOT more reason to believe I’ll have fun.)”

    What I *can* say is that I’ll be glad to sit down with you and have a beer (or beverage of choice) if you come to Helsinki. Politics is politics, but what the heck, we are SF&F fans. If we start talking books and movies, my guess is that we’ll be in agreement in so many things that this years debacle will just pale away.

    Thats my irritation for this year. I want to talk books and movies, not culture war. I think a difference there between US and Europe is that US is much more polarized with no tradition of cooperation between different parties.Thus, the disagreements will become much worse.

    Comment by Hampus - August 27, 2015 2:48 am

  91. Jay:

    And sorry about that comment about shutting the door in your face. I shouldn’t have said that. I apologize.

    Comment by Hampus - August 27, 2015 2:49 am

  92. @daveon—I think you outlined the difference between us with your statement. You might say something cute about navel gazing while you were holding on expecting me to quip a comment about Dunkirk or something. I didn’t see the slaughter that Britain got holding on as something cool or funny. You see, I’ve actually fought in war and I know just how terrible it is. I have a great deal of respect for the British military, Churchill, and a deep love of Kipling. While I was stationed in Germany I did not hate the Germans. They were good people. When I hear someone like you say something vulgar about my country navel gazing as if we are a nation of weaklings and cowards I know what kind of person I’m dealing with. I’d love to say what I’d like to say, but…..I’m not allowed to. Let me just say that I’m glad that your mom and dad lived and breathed. I hope they live or lived happy lives. I only wish they hadn’t had one too many children.

    And no, I’m not talking utter tosh. Conservatives outnumber liberals here by a decent margin. You need to get out and circulate past that echo chamber you are in.

    As for your WFSF friend, I hope he is amused in a good way by Jay’s costume as that would mean that there is hope that you guys have at least someone in your circle with a pulse of humanity.

    @Hampus—that apology is a good example of too little too late. I hope he heard you but…well, while he was here it was probably more important to say other things than trying to heal a divide right? At least you looked noble to your own circle. You cut the man down low AND THEN offer an apology after it looks like this post is dead. You came off like a good sport that way.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 27, 2015 8:29 am

  93. Hampus, I heard. Something that came as a mild surprise at first: I get all of the comments on this article in my email box, both unmoderated and requests to moderate (all of which I have approved, specifically including Cathy’s above; I hope that’s not stepping on John’s prerogatives). Thank you. Perhaps one day, I’ll take you up on that beer, and it won’t be any typical American macro-swill, either. Hambleton Ale’s Nightmare or Baltika 6 would be good choices.

    Wild Ape: I think I’ve been to your barbecue, or one run by your friends. It’s called Libertycon. It’s right at a thousand miles each way for me. This year, I didn’t get the full experience, because I couldn’t get into the con hotel; I’ve already registered and made hotel reservations for next year’s, though.

    From what I’ve read, Wiscon is probably at the other end of that scale, as one might expect from a con in the People’s Republic of Madison, Wisconsin. (And I have reason to know the truth of that statement, since my roommate grew up in a little town further north in the state.) I have no trouble believing the contentions that Wiscon folks are central to the Hugo gatekeeping of the past few years.

    We do need to be cautious of our own echo chambers. How many of us were surprised that this country could actually reelect Barack Obama after the disaster of his first four years? Me, I spent a week or so clinically depressed after that. (And yes, I know the signs. BTDT.)

    I don’t know if this post is dead or not, but I get the sense that John has had enough of the subject.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 27, 2015 9:30 am

  94. Wild Ape – you’re a class act. Cheers – you want to hear something rude about Americans. You should have had a chat with my old man, a navy veteran who served in WW2. There are numerous gags about this in British culture, this is a famous one from the late 60s.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57RjAY59uU

    We love you guys and I like living here, but some of your attitudes bemuse me.

    And finally, why of course you’re a conservative country, that’s why Mitt Romney is President.

    Talking about echo chambers.

    But now I know that you don’t want to engage in good faith you just want to indulge in name calling and making stuff up, at least I know to avoid bothering with you in future.

    Comment by daveon - August 27, 2015 11:08 am

  95. Jay, I’ve likened Saturday night to election night. I was following Twitter and I’d been reading some blogs from the usual suspects and it was obvious they expected to win.

    The reality is you live in a country where Barack Obama could win a second term, and I suspect he’d win a third if it was legal.

    I’m very very comfortable that as a resident outsider looking in, I’m not in the echo chamber at all.

    Comment by daveon - August 27, 2015 11:15 am

  96. I agree: if Obama could run a third time, he would, and he’d probably win because of all the racists voting for him because he’s black.

    You may not be in the conservative echo chamber, but you’re just as susceptible to being in one of your own.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 27, 2015 11:21 am

  97. I’m going to amplify the signal of Ken Burnside (author of “The Hot Equations”)’s story about the Hugos, including interactions with David Gerrold and GRRM…and I’ve asked if he’d be interested in publishing it here.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 27, 2015 6:34 pm

  98. @daveon–that was a funny video. Thank you for lightening the mood. I think I liked all three vets and it was amusing to see stubborn patriotism.

    The lesson learned with Mitt Romney was that he was not a popular candidate within his own voting block and 6 million stayed home. Last election there was a record number of liberals and yet conservatives still outnumber them:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

    The lesson learned is that those that show up to vote have more sway in who wins elections. I wasn’t fond of Dole, or McCain, nor was I thrilled with Mitt Romney. Still, I held my nose and voted for them because they were preferable to the alternative. There were many that aren’t warm to the candidates that we have this election cycle. If Jeb Bush wins I’m likely to stay home this time around.

    The Puppies lost. The only way they are going to win next time around is if they bring more to the vote. Who needs to worry is your side. It was pretty clear that a lot of you had moderates in your ranks willing to vote for whomever and accepted the nominees as they have every year. You even had GRRM calling for people to do just that. Even with your 2,459 Puppy Kicker No Award block they barely gained a victory over Toni Weisskopf. Vox Day drew more votes that Patrick Nielsen Hayden ever did. With those kind of numbers and your new voting policies coming Scalzi and PNH might not get their locked-in Hugo in the years to come.

    I think what you should do daveon is to continue abusing popular people like Toni Weisskopf. Y’all come across like the monsters you are. That way people like me will think twice about funding your HateCons because we don’t want to be a part of that.

    The silence of the media’s flat out lies about the Puppy leaders being white supremacists, and wife beating homophobes neo-Nazis proved to me that your side has no honor. Those lies were recanted and then emerged again by even UK’s own Guardian. Many on your side later said that the accusations were wrong but where was the correction and the outcry? It seems that you don’t care a wit about all of fandom. Your side lied that our picks did not have diversity and called us racists—but we did have diversity. Then you said that we were racists because these were just token picks to shield our racism and lied again. It doesn’t matter what happens your side will call us racists and then cry foul because we call you CHORFs.

    This year I did not vote a slate nor for everything picked by the Sad Puppies. Next year—total slate just like you No Award people did. Two wrongs do not make a right but I see that slate voting is the way to go.

    Go back to your video with the Great War (world war one) veterans. During that war the Germans used poison gas even though it was a terrible and inhumane weapon. They never stopped. The practice was stopped when the Allies fired poison gas right back. Afterwards it stopped. I think that will be the results of the slate battle. It will either render the Hugo to be a stupid political side show or people will stop playing slates because they prefer to save it. We can argue that slates have always been in existence and on what scale they have been done but this year was a good example of what is to come.

    So, tell me daveon. Why should we not use slates? Why is ruining the Hugo so important to you? I’ve heard it said by your side that slate voting saved unworthy nominees from getting a Hugo. Okay, our side prevented unworthy nominees from getting a chance to win. You see, both sides like them. Keep in mind that Vox Day didn’t read Three Body Problem until three months AFTER the ballot was made. It was his choice for Novel. Had he read it before he would have made it his choice. The Rabid Puppies were enough to put it up as a win—yet this Hugo winner would have been a NO AWARD if Vox had put it on his slate.

    “now I know that you don’t want to engage in good faith you just want to indulge in name calling and making stuff up, at least I know to avoid bothering with you in future.”

    I don’t recall calling you a name. I do recall saying that I didn’t like you implying that my country was cowardly and weak. If a vet in a comedy skit says that in satire, that is different because it is satire. If in a blog post it is implied that is quite another because it is meant to hurt.

    I am arguing in good faith. I’ve shown you the logic of slate voting and escalation. I also say that in the nomination process slate voting is probably common because people are partisan about their picks. They tend to read the picks after the nomination process. It seems to me that your side wants us to submit our list to you for approval and in turn you get to tell us what should or should not be on our list. I’m saying that isn’t how it’s done, nor is it logical. You say to me that lists and slates are unethical even if they are part of the rules. Okay, show me a reason why we should let your small scale slates slide because that has been done before. Show me why we should go Rabid Puppy and block the whole slate and keep our enemies off it as it happened this year. Show me that you stand up against character assassinations from the press and protect fandom from being smeared. I didn’t hear a peep from your side. If you can do that I’d be more than happy to go to the Sad Puppies and campaign for those ideas. I think, or at least I hope that your interest is like mine in making the Hugo award about all of fandom as it is advertised to be.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 27, 2015 8:50 pm

  99. @Jay—that was a great link and underscores just how rotten the vitriol has been.

    @daveon—Let’s be clear what Toni Weisskopf at the Hugos was all about. Toni has been widely known as an elite editor in her field. Yet until the Sad Puppies came along she was nominated ZERO times. She got on the ballot and the Hugo voting brought a record number of votes for her category. She brought in far more than just the Puppy votes too. She lost to No Award.

    To be clear, this is straight from the SJW playbook. Toni had to be made an example that would serve to all that to never cross the line. She was reviled and scorned. She was told to “grow up” and face the humiliation heaped upon her. She “deserved” what she got and when she walked off she was mocked. People roared in applause when she lost. That is what happens when you violate the narrative. You get torn down because of politics and not due to the merit of your work. That was wrong and INDEFENSIBLE.

    Now Hampus is a classic example of how Sad Puppies are treated both in public and behind closed doors. The metaphoric slamming in the face follows an apology only when it looks tasteless in public. They certainly slammed the door in her face.

    It is not Toni Weisskopf who should grow up it is the people that tore her down that should do the growing. She did her job. She did it right and she gained favor through hard work and consistent excellence. She deserved nothing of the abuse that you rained down on her. It did not escape our notice and I can tell you that we are motivated and angry at your barbarity.

    It has not escaped my notice that there is a sinister bias against Catholics and Mormons. Larry Correia, Brad Thorgersen, and Orson Scott Card have been soundly abused as well. Card is a liberal but Christians are soft targets. Tor puts out many books with an anti Christian and anti Mormon bias. But that is okay I suppose because they don’t meet the narrative and “deserve” no civility whatsoever from you people.

    I don’t see cathy’s post anywhere. Apparently she watched the Anita Sarkasian video and has nothing to say. Hate is a thriving business and you people are hate enablers.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 27, 2015 10:08 pm

  100. One thing Ken’s story has done for me: it’s crystallized just how unwelcoming fandom is to those who do not hew to the approved line.

    I’d seriously like to know how anyone can read that and then tell me with a straight face that anyone who supports the Puppy cause will ever be welcome at a Worldcon again.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 27, 2015 11:33 pm

  101. Wild Ape,

    Honestly. You start with attacking others for being ISIS huggers. And Jay starts with attacking Tor for cheating by sending employees with ready made voting ballots.

    And then you get surprised when people react to it. Blaming them instead of taking responsibility for what you yourself say.

    I have no idea what this “grow up” and “deserved” comes from regarding Toni. Have you got a link? Also, it seems weird to hear you say that Tor has got a bias against catholics when one of their main editors, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, is a catholic himself. And this anti-mormon bias, have you seen that against Brandon Sanderson? You know, a quite well known conservative and mormon author that publishes his book at Tor.

    Comment by Hampus - August 28, 2015 7:28 am

  102. @Hampus—The link to Hugo nominees being told to grow up and that they deserved the scorn? Why sure:

    https://www.blackgate.com/2015/08/24/dear-puppy-nominees-grow-up/

    I think you misquoted me there Hampus. I believe what I said was in reference to the fiction and not the person. And yes, I found mean spirited words to describe the fiction.

    I have found that those on your side of the political aisle, not all certainly, but about half of you, are hate filled towards religion and strike out at weak targets like the Catholics or the Mormons. Most of this hatred for the Mormons comes from their strong anti homosexual and traditional stances. Teresa Neilsen-Hayden for instance was booted out of the Mormons for her position on feminism. This hurts your sides feelings who have a lot of atheists, lots of feminists, and lots of pro GLBT. Do you go after all religions or just the ones that are safe to do so? Last I checked Mormons aren’t tossing people off the tops of buildings for being homosexuals but we all know but dare not say who does. (of course not all, but ISIS certainly does) Correia, Torgersen, Orson Scott Card—-all Mormon. Tor fiction—the last two novels I read from Tor were anti Mormon bias. Now I am not a Mormon but I can spot bigotry when I see it. Compare that with Saladin Ahmed and how it was supported for a Hugo nomination. Have you ever seen his pro ISIS tweets? Not a word is said against that either. The guy routinely praises all the ISIS fighters in Yemen and scorns the Saudis. But lets face it, if people were to stand against those anti homosexuals it might take REAL bravery so anti-Mormon is safe. Of course anyone who dares to stand against this insane guilt by association becomes a target for attack because they are pro-Mormon they are therefore anti homosexual. Me, I’m not anti homosexual. I’m not a Mormon either. I have philosophical differences with Mormons but it doesn’t come to the level of hate that many on your side rise to. I just use your same logic on you and see how you like being an ISIS hugger.

    I do get your point about being civil. What I hope is that you are one of those good fellows who might be angry and want to slam a door in someone’s face but check yourself and do the right and civil thing. That would be a good start. And yes, I did come in firing but your side has made it impossible to apologize. If we do it quickly becomes an admission of guilt and you look past our hurt that has been inflicted. Your side concentrates on the guilt, demands satisfaction and NOTHING short of ruin satisfies you. How many times did Torgersen and Wright apologize and then get deleted, abused, and scorned. Patrick Nielsen Hayden couldn’t even be civil to the man’s wife for crying out loud.

    The rabid behavior on your side is so bad that even good people are cowed into silence. That only encourages the bad. Your silence offends me. It tells me that you are too cowardly to stand up against the abuse of a woman—any woman—-not just the ones with your own political mindset. It tells me that you encourage that behavior in your own ranks. How often have I spoken out about Vox Day’s lousy statements?

    So Hampus, it is good to know that you had the decency to apologize and at least the courage to come back and see if it was accepted. I think that shows that you were sincere. I will do my best to be civil in return based on your polite action.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 28, 2015 8:23 am

  103. Wild Ape,

    You wrote about Toni Weisskopf:

    “She was told to “grow up” and face the humiliation heaped upon her. She “deserved” what she got and when she walked off she was mocked.”

    And as proof you link to a post about how *puppies* should grow up. As far as I know Toni Weisskopf is no puppy, she is just a person the puppies put on a slate. So please, show me a link where SHE was told to grow up.

    I’m not interested in being dragged into a gish gallop. That kind of debating technique is just a signal that someone has lost an argument.

    Comment by Hampus - August 28, 2015 8:45 am

  104. Never let it be said that this kind of thing is not educational. “Gish gallop”?

    Comment by Jay Maynard - August 28, 2015 9:34 am

  105. Named after Duane Gish:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

    Basically, it is about drowning another persons in arguments and links to force them to spend hours to answer everything.

    You will find people using it on all side of debates. For me, it is mostly a reminder that I have a life that might need me. 😉

    Comment by Hampus - August 28, 2015 9:55 am

  106. Wild Ape, this is a step sideways from the main conversation in this thread at the moment, but I’ve been meaning to ask you about a combination of words that seems really counterintuitive to me. The mention of ISIS several times upthread reminded me of my perplexity.

    You sometimes talk about “feminist jihad.” Because you’re willing to go to great length to give people a fair shake when you feel like they’re listening in good faith, I want to hear from you why you use that term. And I’ll be straight-up with you: my first thought at seeing the term was that you might be parodying conservative discourse, because it makes that little sense to me.

    When I (and many feminists) see the word “jihad” in a conversation that includes, say, ISIS, we associate the term with incidents like the ones in this article. If you want to see what a war on women would look like if it were taken to its most literal extreme, it would look like what the Islamic State is doing to captured Yazidi girls and women in the name of jihad. If there’s one area of foreign policy where I’m pretty sure you and I would like to see the same outcome, it’s the fate of the Islamic State.

    Lumping my belief that women are human beings and entitled to the same human rights as men are with the Islamic State’s practices…it pains me to say this to you, though it wouldn’t pain me to say this to others, because you and I have built a friendship here despite our disagreements…it offends me. If there’s a rational basis for saying that the belief that human rights belong to all humans is equivalent to violent theocracy, I’d like to hear it. Otherwise, it’s hard not to take the term as demagoguery. And I hold you in high enough regard to guess that the demagoguery originates with someone other than you. If you got the term “feminist jihad” from somewhere else, I would like to understand where it came from and why you have adopted it.

    Comment by Sarah Avery - August 28, 2015 3:34 pm

  107. @Sarah—This has been a tough week for me. I took my dog into the vet and found out that my beloved companion has terminal cancer. Tuesday she went to the surgeon and her life has been extended for a month or two tops. It was the first day back to work and I found that a coworker had died of cancer. Then if that wasn’t bad enough I found out that a mother of three has terminal breast cancer. And if that isn’t bad enough I found one kid came to me crying and told me that her mother’s immune system was shot and her body was no longer accepting transfusions and her mom might have a week to a month to live. Her father long ago rejected her and she has lived a marginal existence for the last few years. Cancer sucks. So, yeah, I’m probably just a bit angry and venting far beyond what I should in polite company and I’m most likely wrong.

    For feminism, I’m someone who raised my daughter to be strong and independent. I told her that she should never count on a man and that she should make her way and never position herself with someone who was not strong and loving and who would regard her as an equal. For me that is the real beauty of feminism as I understand and follow it. We have discussed before that neo feminism has many strains both from the old version and a newer one that has many branches. Some of them have good qualities and some are wreckless in my view. I think that if a brand of feminism means that feminism is the uber alles gender then I don’t think it is right. If men are to be degraded then it isn’t a philosophy that I find to be good. Some feminists seek to use their gender to tear down people. I see these viewpoints equally useless and vile as their male chauvinist counterparts. Often those of the bad strain of feminism seek the destruction of males in the most vile and reprehensible ways. Their targets are easy and safe and not true misogynists like ISIS. I don’t hear a peep of criticism aimed at that quarter. One would think that Christians or the average male is worse than ISIS who view women as cattle. So jihad was used intentionally, and yeah, it is offensive. The average woman who seeks to be paid what should be her due or has to fight for respect that should be due anyone is not someone I targeted with that statement. Was it wrong to use the term? Yes, it was. Point taken.

    Going to your argument that if Spouse J and T are feuding because of a bad relative actions and one spouse is constantly harping on the other about the relative, what does one do? I think the spouse constantly harping about something they can’t control poisons the relationship and is abusing the other. As it relates to this discussion on feminism and why did I use the term. Well, if I’m going to be accused of being a misogynist and I am hurt and held accountable for being a misogynist no matter what I say then I might as well hurt back to show that words do hurt and stop. I’d probably part ways with that spouse if they couldn’t be rational and reasonable. Peace should be the goal. So why did I use it? I’m pissed off about what happened to Toni Weisskopf. I thought she was treated poorly. When the awards ceremony set the tone to encourage people to act like a mob and hurt and act poorly. There were many who did not feel that Toni deserved that and they were not friendly towards the Sad Puppies. They saw the wrong in what was done too. I suggest that the hardcore Hugo electorate dial back their misogyny treatment of the Sad Puppies and go after real misogynist targets. Was I wrong. Yeah. Do two wrongs make a right? No they don’t. The part of the Hugo electorate that did not support or condone what was done needs to speak out against this. Is this how we want fandom to act? Apparently the majority think this is acceptable.

    @Hampus and Sarah—-Hampus seems to be actually interested in understanding and discourse. I hope he notes that my tone has been dampened.

    I posted the link to show that I did not make anything up and that my opinion was substantiated. I wasn’t trying to Gish Gallop you. The premise of the link was titled: Dear Puppy Nominees: Grow Up. To paraphrase it in as neutral a tone as I can muster it said that turning down the Hugo nomination is hard to do but the “wrath of the Hugo electorate” was going to come crashing down and only an “idiot” couldn’t see it coming. They viewed the Puppies as an attack on the Hugo award integrity and that No Award was to punish them because two people should not have that much power of a nomination in the Hugo process. The Hugo electorate was rightfully sticking it to the Puppy nominees. That is basically how I interpreted it. Is Toni Weisskopf a Puppy? No, she is a Puppy nominee. Was she named? No, but it was very clear in the piece that she was one of them that they were talking about. Prior to this year Toni Weisskopf was nominated ZERO times. The Sad Puppies got her on the ballot and it was called illegitimate. It was called incompetent and trash. When the voting came Toni won far more votes than the puppy population and that meant that many thought that she was legit. Toni also won more votes than any other editor before but that was negated by a No Award vote. I’d say that the Hugo electorate that voted No Award proved that there is a left wing bias there in at least half the electorate. The fact that she got bi partisan support proves that the Puppy nominees were not crap but in many cases valid. It proves that Larry Correia was not lying at all. Further, that Vox Day read Three Body Problem AFTER the nominations and voted for it in the finals and it won through puppy support. If Vox Day had put it on his slate during the nomination the winner of the Hugo would have been given a No Award. That evidence is damning. It proves that half of the non puppy Hugo electorate cannot be objective in a Hugo vote because they place politics before quality and narrative before fandom.

    I get the No Award faction’s point on why slate voting is wrong. None the less there is no outcry for people to stop as slates have existed on a small scale for a long time. They claim that they don’t want to use slates on a grand scale because it blocks people out. I think the more logical approach would be to accept that voters are partisan during the nomination process. It would be better to accept that slates will never go away and that the best outcome would be a method that empowers concentrated partisanship without blanket control. I think the point system is a great idea or a broader number of nominations where voters only get to vote for half of the nominations available. I think it is human nature to expect that no one thinks that their taste of fiction is inferior and to expect slates to be countered with No Award slates. What would be best for fandom is if the winners or the No Award is a concentrated vote as well. I would say that most people like to vote for something and not against something. Hugo winners are better for the award because it does reflect fandom at that moment in time. Two can play the No Award game. If five nominees are competing for a win they will be divided up and it would be easy to motivate puppies to no award every category because they would have concentrated power. Have you thought of that?

    I’m glad that Hampus seems sincere to discuss things rationally. I hope that I have responded in kind or at least I tried. If you want to truly heal fandom then you have to face that the Sad Puppies will respond to being treated nice. They are never treated nice but on the rare occassion that they are they do try to be nice back because it stands out. If you think the hate mob and rage tactics work then by all means continue.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 28, 2015 7:08 pm

  108. @Sarah—I forgot to say that I do feel bad about offending you with the feminist jihad comment. Like the other spouse analogy, it isn’t your fault that some feminists are misguided and that the majority are rational and trying to fight for what they shouldn’t have to fight for: common decency and respect. The “bad relative” feminists are people too and I’d rather that they are free than to silence them. Take Liz Lutgendorf for instance. There was some worth in what she was saying too. The majority of feminists are rational and it is a shame that their message is drowned out at times by the branches that are less rational. I make mistakes.

    Comment by Wild Ape - August 28, 2015 7:40 pm

  109. What a rough week. I’m so sorry to hear about that crush of bad news.

    Yes, cancer sucks. Just after I got home from Mythcon, a dear friend who has been cheering that book on since before it came out in paper died of pancreatic cancer just three weeks after he was diagnosed. It still feels unreal that he’s gone.

    Let’s find out where cancer lives and go beat it up with brickbats. There’s something Puppies and lefties could probably be glad to do side by side.

    Apology accepted about the jihad comment. And if I ever say something that problematic about people on the right, I hope you will do me the kindness of telling me, so I have a chance to put it right, too.

    I think the distinction between equity feminism and gender feminism is useful. There are some basic insights in gender feminism that I think are worthwhile, and you might agree on these points. Gender functions differently in different cultures, and differently within the same culture at different points in history. Individual people may experience their own gender identities differently at different times in their lives, and may do things to change the way others see them as gendered beings.

    If all of that could be boiled down to three words, they would be: Gender is weird.

    The nuttiest gender feminist I ever read seemed to believe that physical bodies don’t exist and we should all choose to be — not just to emulate, but to be — hermaphrodites. Literal hermaphrodites, not just androgynous people. It’s not usually my style to put things this way, but to borrow your phrasing: The Stupid, It Burns!

    I’m not comfortable lumping all gender feminism together as bad feminism, though. The transgendered Vietnam combat veteran I know — you’d like her, she’s right with you on the second amendment — has found some gender feminism useful in making sense of her history. She carries experiences in her memory I can only imagine having to live with, and anything that helps her be at peace with having taken lives and been a POW has to have a good side.

    This comment thread is getting long and old, so I propose that we tackle to slate voting issues on another day.

    I’m working on a post about the disorienting experience of becoming an award-winning author, and how that shapes my efforts to understand the Hugo mess. Not sure when the post will go live, but that seems to me like a good context for talking about the slate issues. For one thing, I didn’t buy a supporting membership, so I didn’t have to make a personal decision about how to vote on the Hugos. So I have some more thinking to do.

    Good night, friend.

    Comment by Sarah Avery - August 30, 2015 1:40 am

  110. Wild Ape:

    “Toni Weisskopf a Puppy? No, she is a Puppy nominee. Was she named? No, but it was very clear in the piece that she was one of them that they were talking about. Prior to this year Toni Weisskopf was nominated ZERO times.”

    Incorrect. Weisskopf was also nominated 2014 and was not voted below No Award then (she might have been nominated more times). And I disagree that Weisskopf was one of those they were talking about. As you say, she wasn’t even named and she isn’t a puppy.

    Now, I did vote Weisskopf under No Award myself. Under a normal year, I would never have voted for editor, but this time I felt it was important to vote as to not give Beale even the slightest chanse to win. As I’m not competent enough to judge an editor, I’m afraid I placed them all under No Award. Weisskopfs was the easiest choice as she sent absolutely no information on what she had edited in the Hugo package. That would have placed her under No Award even in an ordinary year.

    Sorry for your week. Life sucks sometimes. To loose ones animal companion is a depressing thing. Take care of yourself.

    Comment by Hampus - August 30, 2015 12:53 pm

  111. Oh, Toni Weisskopf was nominated 2013 also.

    Comment by Hampus - August 30, 2015 2:52 pm

  112. Sorry for not getting back to this in reasonable time. Like you, Wild Ape, Life has been Happening. Sorry to hear about your dog and all the people in your life getting cancer and the like – that is an awful week.

    Now, you did reply to me, but you did not respond to what I actually said. I said you did not read Anita Sarkeesian’s nomination, and I quoted you specifically saying you had read it. And I called you a LIAR. And I still call you a LIAR, because you didn’t read it.

    You responded to my calling you out on not reading a nomination that you specifically condemned, saying you had read it — by telling me to watch a video and then telling me you didn’t like how Sarkeesian came across in an interview.

    What the heck does that have to do with what I said? I said you didn’t read her nomination, you claimed you did and that’s a LIE, then you tell me to watch some video someone else made? You tell me you don’t like her interview?

    WHAT THE HECK? Just admit you didn’t read it and you’re making your statement based on one other person’s views and how you felt about an INTERVIEW, not the NOMINATION.

    You did NOT read it. You said you DID. You LIED. Are you going to admit that you lied to a group of people discussing whether someone should have been nominated for an award, claiming familiarity with the work, when you actually didn’t read it at all?

    Remember, I can PROVE you’re lying.

    Yes, I know calling someone a liar is a very aggressive stance. But when someone lies so blatantly, I’m not going to ignore it.

    Now note what I have not called you and that I didn’t address any of your politics or your rude statements about people whose politics are different than yours. I am only addressing that you did not tell the truth about your having read Sarkeesian. There’s a lot I could say about the politics, but it’s mostly been said by others and would not add any value.

    Really, all I want here is for you to admit you were dishonest and thought you could get away with it, knowing others are not familiar with Sarkeesian. I am really offended that you pulled that. Just apologize for lying and I’ll let it go.

    Comment by cathy from encino - September 1, 2015 2:00 pm

  113. Cathy, I’m not going to presume to speak for John, but to me, you are skirting the line he set down about acceptable argumentation vs. rudeness on this blog. You might wish to tone it down a bit.

    Comment by Jay Maynard - September 1, 2015 2:02 pm

  114. Cathy,

    Apologies for not stepping in earlier.

    Jay is entirely correct. Black Gate is a place for lively debate on SF and Fantasy. It’s not a place where I will tolerate having my invited guests insulted — for any reason.

    I get that you’re passionate about this topic. If you feel you have grounds to call someone a liar, have at it. But not on my blog, and not to one of my invited guests.

    Take it elsewhere, or I will delete your account, and your comments.

    Thank you for your understanding.

    Comment by John ONeill - September 1, 2015 2:37 pm

  115. […] (15) Jay Maynard on Black Gate – “Dear Conservatives: Don’t Let the Door Hit You On the Way Out” […]

    Pingback by Puppies In Perpetual Motion | File 770 - September 13, 2018 6:18 pm


Comments RSS  |  TrackBack URI

 

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Black Gate Home
This site © 2018 by New Epoch Press. All rights reserved.