Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Y'know. I'm liberal, I believe in LGBTQQIP2SAA rights, racial issues in the us are indeed a problem, and wage inequalities
but I'm getting sow tired of social justice warriors. All they do is batch and moan on tumblr, make issues out of non issues, try to kill everything I love, I'm just tired of them tbh.

The Hugo awards have always been like this. It's not the first time it's happened. The award has been heavily slanted towards conservative politics and idealogues and it doesn't need any 'gaming' to do that. The award was somewhat pretentious and really selective about what kind of sci-fi it tended to consider long before that. The only way to legitimately believe that this all started last year, is to have never paid attention to a Hugo Award for the last 2 decades.

Nothing new here. Move along.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
LGBTQQIP2SAA

Is that really what the acronym is up to now? I KNEW there was a new letter getting added on every time I heard it.

Most sensible use lgbtq

 Manchu wrote:
My impression is, he is confessing that as a self-criticism as well as a criticism of a larger social phenomenon of underreporting.

It depends on what he knows, which we don't know. I'm comfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's a muppet not a criminal.

But I'm getting off topic so apologies

 daedalus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
LGBTQQIP2SAA

Is that really what the acronym is up to now? I KNEW there was a new letter getting added on every time I heard it.

My goodness, anyone else reminded of Oxhorn's brand medley lyric of "LOL-OMG-WTG-DAIRY-QUEEN- LOL-OMG-BB-THE-Q" from that acronym?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I operated under the notion that Science Fiction's was rooted in progressive themes, so I am surprised by the backlash.

Well, let me introduce you to Dan Simmons .
Damn, I read Flashback, his sockpuppeted rants were very, very damn annoying, and the whole world described was so utterly incoherent it was painful.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

A quick sidebar on Vox Day, one of a handful of this saga’s bold-faced names. In addition to writing sci-fi, he’s a video game designer and early proponent of Gamergate, which, he argues, resembles Sad Puppies in that “both groups are striking back against the left-wing control freaks who have subjected science fiction to ideological control for two decades and are now attempting to do the same thing in the game industry.” He is the second human being to be expelled from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), after he used the organization’s official Twitter feed to slam the award-winning black novelist N.K. Jemisin as a “half-savage.” He questions the need for women’s suffrage. And he believes that our national ills can be partially attributed to “the infestation of even the smallest American heartland towns by African, Asian, and Aztec cultures.” Yes, Aztecs. ANYWAY.

Gamergate oh gamergate .

 LordofHats wrote:
The Hugo awards have always been like this. It's not the first time it's happened. The award has been heavily slanted towards conservative politics and idealogues and it doesn't need any 'gaming' to do that. The award was somewhat pretentious and really selective about what kind of sci-fi it tended to consider long before that. The only way to legitimately believe that this all started last year, is to have never paid attention to a Hugo Award for the last 2 decades.

Nothing new here. Move along.

No, this is very new. The Hugo's, with their ultimately very small voting pool, have always been vulnerable to popularity shifts, and people pushing a particular agenda, but this is the first time it's been done to this scale. I remember the opinions floating around when books like The Goblet of Fire and A Storm of Swords won Hugos, and some people were -very- unhappy about it, thinking they only won because they were popular, but not good.

Whatever.

People get to vote however they want, but the issue here is how many titles of the SP's slate made, and how abberant the voting numbers are compared to previous years. Not only that, but you've got the direct link to the directions of Vox Day, with his threats of leaving the Hugos a 'smoking ruin' (his words), and Wright. Having your work connected to them is like baking a cake with dog gak frosting. It doesn't matter how AMAZING your cake is, because it's covered in dog gak.

Really the best way to sum up what's wrong with Wright, and being linked to him is a millstone, is the following. I've never been a big fan of Terry Pratchett, having gotten into him well after popular opinion declared him 'best thing EVER!' and really, no one could live up to that hype, but here is Wright showing his utter failure as a person and as a Christian, listening to Pratchett speak about Alzheimer's and getting to choose when you die.

His response to a speech by Terry Pratchett before his death (well, obviously... >.&gt about euthanasia tells you everything you need to know about him.

I sat and listened to pure evil being uttered in charming accents accentuated by droll witticism, and I did not stand up, and I did not strike the old man who uttered them across the mouth: and when he departed, everyone stood and gave him an ovation, even though he had done nothing in his life aside from entertain their idle afternoons. Only I did not stand, being too sick at heart. I did nothing, I said nothing. Was this Christian humility on my part, or merely the cowardice of the silence good men which allows evil men to triumph?

 Manchu wrote:
A small group committed to a certain agenda influenced the genre. Then another small group committed to a different agenda influenced the genre. Why does only the work of the second group merit criticism?

Basically sums up the situation as I see it as an outsider.

 Manchu wrote:
A small group committed to a certain agenda influenced the genre. Then another small group committed to a different agenda influenced the genre. Why does only the work of the second group merit criticism?

The difference is that the first group didn't attempt to rig the voting just to make a political point. Left-leaning authors made no effort to hide their politics in either their writing or their personal lives, but they didn't go beyond "this book is awesome" in trying to lobby for votes. The anti-SJW crowd, on the other hand, has crossed the line into "vote for this to make a political point, not because it's your favorite". Their goal isn't to reward deserving authors, it's to attack the "SJWs". Giving an award to a particular book is just a means to an end, and it doesn't really matter which book wins as long as it's one their enemies would disagree with.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Have you actually seen the list of those nominated? The list in no way reflects a right-wing ideology. The current list of nominees represents a broader range of race, creed and sexuality than it ever has.

The nomination list is not the same thing as the "vote for these to spite the SJWs" list. Not every anti-SJW book was nominated, and not every nominee was the result of anti-SJW lobbying.

Curious how you have come to the conclusion how those behind Sad Puppies are right wing idealogues.

Because they openly admit it? If you make even a token attempt to see what issues they advocate for it's pretty obvious that they're very definitely right-wing as a whole.

 Sigvatr wrote:
This basically is what it boils down to...isn't it? Conservatives have Sad Puppies lobbying for their votes, Leftists have their fellow SJW lobbying for their authors...so...where's the problem? If Sad Puppies have such a huge influence, then they represent a majority...and if SJW then keep howling wolf...then they don't understand how democracy works. Unless there's something I'm missing about the entire issue. As stated before, not familiar with sci-fi literature at all.

If the Hugo shortlists were supposed to represent which political sci-fi hacks had the best organised muppets voting loyally for their ‘cause’, then your answer would make sense. But the shortlists are actually supposed to represent the books that are most loved because they’re actually good books that people choose to vote for as their personal favourite.

Note that there is no equivalent left wing campaign to vote for their ‘approved’ books. But if there was the issue would actually become worse not better, because then you’d just get a second set of crappy books with effective marketing campaigns flooding the shortlists. There might be political balance between right and left on the list, but that would mean nothing because the awards aren’t about political balance, they’re about recognising the best work that year. The only effect would be quality work getting squeezed about by yet more culture war nonsense.

Take the politics out of this and understand the root of the problem – gak books with very few sales are getting Hugo shortlisted because of organised marketing campaigns. Whether those campaigns are by people organised around fringe politics, or by people organised around the belief that there aren’t enough Manx cats in sci-fi is irrelevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The Hugo awards have always been like this. It's not the first time it's happened. The award has been heavily slanted towards conservative politics and idealogues and it doesn't need any 'gaming' to do that. The award was somewhat pretentious and really selective about what kind of sci-fi it tended to consider long before that. The only way to legitimately believe that this all started last year, is to have never paid attention to a Hugo Award for the last 2 decades.

Nothing new here. Move along.

I don't think it needs to be happening for the first time ever to be worth commenting on. Here we're seeing the latest iteration, and it's a particularly effective model coming from a really small fringe of the audience, and given it is overtly political I think it's worth special attention.

I always thought that book publishers marketed authors for awards like these in the same way that movie studios market actors/films for the academy awards. I guess I'm kind of surprised to see that isn't true.

You guys do realise that the books presented on the sadpuppies slate have BOTH conservative and liberal authors right? And that rabidpuppies, which is run by Vox, iirc, is actually a seperate spin-off or sister movement rather than the same. It's not like sad puppies is just nominating conservative authors, which is the impression I'm getting from this thread.

At the end of the day, the privilege for voting is 40 bucks. Go spend it if you want to make your voice heard instead of complaining on a forum about how certain rabble are coming to take over the Hugo awards.

 Breotan wrote:
I always thought that book publishers marketed authors for awards like these in the same way that movie studios market actors/films for the academy awards. I guess I'm kind of surprised to see that isn't true.

Depends on the award probably. In this case it's an award voted on by the fans (originally the fans attending a specific convention, but now anyone who wants to buy a voting membership can vote), so that kind of marketing wouldn't be all that effective.

 Peregrine wrote:
The difference is that the first group didn't attempt to rig the voting just to make a political point. Left-leaning authors made no effort to hide their politics in either their writing or their personal lives, but they didn't go beyond "this book is awesome" in trying to lobby for votes. The anti-SJW crowd, on the other hand, has crossed the line into "vote for this to make a political point, not because it's your favorite". Their goal isn't to reward deserving authors, it's to attack the "SJWs". Giving an award to a particular book is just a means to an end, and it doesn't really matter which book wins as long as it's one their enemies would disagree with.

Exactly. People's opinions on books are going to be affected by their politics, and that means there is going to be politics in awards, but that's just life. But this movement is looking to make people's opinions on books secondary to their politics, which is something else entirely.

 Peregrine wrote:

Curious how you have come to the conclusion how those behind Sad Puppies are right wing idealogues.

Because they openly admit it? If you make even a token attempt to see what issues they advocate for it's pretty obvious that they're very definitely right-wing as a whole.

Where did you get this evidence from? It's at this point I'm going to ask for proof. Yes, there are some right wingers (but being R-Wing is not a crime [although I'm centre left!]), but a cursory glance of SP3 supporters shows a diverse crowd. I'm genuinely curious, Peregrine: where did you find the information that they're " very definitely right wing as a whole", because as whole they are damn diverse.

The nomination list is not the same thing as the "vote for these to spite the SJWs" list. Not every anti-SJW book was nominated, and not every nominee was the result of anti-SJW lobbying.

Missed my point. The nominees do not reflect a right-wing lobby, nor an attempt to push a white agenda. The books that SP3 have supported are diverse. How the heck can that be evidence of right wing?

It's like you only think in the duality of left/right: "Oh, if you are against SJWs, you must be a right winger!". Things are more complex than that with SP3.

 Haemonculus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Curious how you have come to the conclusion how those behind Sad Puppies are right wing idealogues.

Because they openly admit it? If you make even a token attempt to see what issues they advocate for it's pretty obvious that they're very definitely right-wing as a whole.

Where did you get this evidence from? It's at this point I'm going to ask for proof. Yes, there are some right wingers (but being R-Wing is not a crime [although I'm centre left!]), but a cursory glance of SP3 supporters shows a diverse crowd. I'm genuinely curious, Peregrine: where did you find the information that they're " very definitely right wing as a whole", because as whole they are damn diverse.

Obviously from the same place that people got the idea that gamergate is behind sad puppies.

The nomination list is not the same thing as the "vote for these to spite the SJWs" list. Not every anti-SJW book was nominated, and not every nominee was the result of anti-SJW lobbying.

Missed my point. The nominees do not reflect a right-wing lobby, nor an attempt to push a white agenda. The books that SP3 have supported are diverse. How the heck can that be evidence of right wing?

It's like you only think in the duality of left/right: "Oh, if you are against SJWs, you must be a right winger!". Things are more complex than that with SP3.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Where did you get this evidence from? It's at this point I'm going to ask for proof. Yes, there are some right wingers (but being R-Wing is not a crime [although I'm centre left!]), but a cursory glance of SP3 supporters shows a diverse crowd. I'm genuinely curious, Peregrine: where did you find the information that they're " very definitely right wing as a whole", because as whole they are damn diverse.

Did you even read the OP in this thread? Let's look at the position of the person organized the SP 3 campaign:

A few decades ago, if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women.
But now:

The book has a spaceship on the cover, but is it really going to be a story about space exploration and pioneering derring-do? Or is the story merely about racial prejudice and exploitation…
A planet, framed by a galactic backdrop. Could it be an actual bona fide space opera? Heroes and princesses and laser blasters? No, wait. It’s about sexism and the oppression of women.
Finally, a book with a painting of a person wearing a mechanized suit of armor! Holding a rifle! War story ahoy! Nope, wait. It’s actually about gay and transgender issues.
No longer interested in adventure, argue the Puppies, the Hugos have grown elitist, academic, and overly ideological—irrelevant to the average fan.

That's just the standard right-wing "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" agenda. Or perhaps you could look up the political positions of a guy named Larry Correia. You know, the guy who came up with the Sad Puppies concept in the first place.

(And just to be nice I'll assume that the SP3 campaign is honest about Vox Day not being part of it, despite getting a nomination out of the deal.)

What Peregine is saying is that he believes the news when he agrees with it but not when he disagrees with it.

Also, something something about how Vox Day got a nomination so he must be supported by Sadpuppies somehow, despite the fact that other liberal authors got a nomination as well from SP. So somehow they're are also supported by SP.

I mean, it's like the concept of hey, this guy may be a political nutjob but he writes good fiction hasn't quite occured to some people.

 Peregrine wrote:
Did you even read the OP in this thread? Let's look at the position of the person organized the SP 3 campaign:

A few decades ago, if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women.
But now:

The book has a spaceship on the cover, but is it really going to be a story about space exploration and pioneering derring-do? Or is the story merely about racial prejudice and exploitation…
A planet, framed by a galactic backdrop. Could it be an actual bona fide space opera? Heroes and princesses and laser blasters? No, wait. It’s about sexism and the oppression of women.
Finally, a book with a painting of a person wearing a mechanized suit of armor! Holding a rifle! War story ahoy! Nope, wait. It’s actually about gay and transgender issues.
No longer interested in adventure, argue the Puppies, the Hugos have grown elitist, academic, and overly ideological—irrelevant to the average fan.

That's just the standard right-wing "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" agenda. Or perhaps you could look up the political positions of a guy named Larry Correia. You know, the guy who came up with the Sad Puppies concept in the first place.

(And just to be nice I'll assume that the SP3 campaign is honest about Vox Day not being part of it, despite getting a nomination out of the deal.)

So basically everyone in Sad Puppies is right wing because of this? Is this your evidence, Peregrine? Seriously?

Regarding the OP, that's just one article you've decided to agree with. Even the Telegraph amended the errors that the quoted article made in the OP.

 Haemonculus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Did you even read the OP in this thread? Let's look at the position of the person organized the SP 3 campaign:

A few decades ago, if you saw a lovely spaceship on a book cover, with a gorgeous planet in the background, you could be pretty sure you were going to get a rousing space adventure featuring starships and distant, amazing worlds. If you saw a barbarian swinging an axe? You were going to get a rousing fantasy epic with broad-chested heroes who slay monsters, and run off with beautiful women.
But now:

The book has a spaceship on the cover, but is it really going to be a story about space exploration and pioneering derring-do? Or is the story merely about racial prejudice and exploitation…
A planet, framed by a galactic backdrop. Could it be an actual bona fide space opera? Heroes and princesses and laser blasters? No, wait. It’s about sexism and the oppression of women.
Finally, a book with a painting of a person wearing a mechanized suit of armor! Holding a rifle! War story ahoy! Nope, wait. It’s actually about gay and transgender issues.
No longer interested in adventure, argue the Puppies, the Hugos have grown elitist, academic, and overly ideological—irrelevant to the average fan.

That's just the standard right-wing "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" agenda. Or perhaps you could look up the political positions of a guy named Larry Correia. You know, the guy who came up with the Sad Puppies concept in the first place.

(And just to be nice I'll assume that the SP3 campaign is honest about Vox Day not being part of it, despite getting a nomination out of the deal.)

So basically everyone in Sad Puppies is right wing because of this? Is this your evidence, Peregrine? Seriously?

Yes. It's all he needs.

 Haemonculus wrote:
So basically everyone in Sad Puppies is right wing because of this?

Not everyone is right-wing, but that doesn't mean it isn't a right-leaning group organized by right-wing people.

Regarding the OP, that's just one article you've decided to agree with.

You do realize that I posted a direct quote from the organizer of the SP3 campaign, right? That's not "just one article".

Sining wrote:

Yes. It's all he needs.

So much for seeking collateral information before forming an opinion! To be honest, I've been a Hugo fan for years, and have an impressive collection of sci-fi; I've always known the Hugos to have diverse selections, such as Samuel DeLaney for example. So when I heard about SPs1, 2 & 3, I must admit that I was worried, but pretty much most sources discredit Telegraph, io9, etc!

You do realize that I posted a direct quote from the organizer of the SP3 campaign, right? That's not "just one article".

One organiser. If you don't even know how many organisers there are, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge what's the truth.

Sining wrote:
What Peregine is saying is that he believes the news when he agrees with it but not when he disagrees with it.

No, I believe a direct quote from the organizer of the SP3 campaign.

Also, something something about how Vox Day got a nomination so he must be supported by Sadpuppies somehow, despite the fact that other liberal authors got a nomination as well from SP. So somehow they're are also supported by SP.

There's a difference between getting a nomination and being actively involved in the campaign, endorsing the SP3 concept, and creating your own subtle variant of the SP3 list to campaign for.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Haemonculus wrote:
So basically everyone in Sad Puppies is right wing because of this?

Not everyone is right-wing, but that doesn't mean it isn't a right-leaning group organized by right-wing people.

Again, you said that all SPs were right wing; and they are clearly all not. Evidenced by the range of nominees, which reflect a non-right wing movement. Fact and end of argument.

You do realize that I posted a direct quote from the organizer of the SP3 campaign, right? That's not "just one article".

Yes, just one friggen person. And so what, someone has a boogeyman right-wing world belief. Hardly evidence of a crime, and hardly evidence that the movement is right wing.

 Haemonculus wrote:

Sining wrote:

Yes. It's all he needs.

So much for seeking collateral information before forming an opinion! To be honest, I've been a Hugo fan for years, and have an impressive collection of sci-fi; I've always known the Hugos to have diverse selections, such as Samuel DeLaney for example. So when I heard about SPs1, 2 & 3, I must admit that I was worried, but pretty much most sources discredit Telegraph, io9, etc!

It should be interesting because EW! has already had to 'correct' its article after being contacted by the authors they mentioned in their own article. Will see if this affects the others as well


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sining wrote:
What Peregine is saying is that he believes the news when he agrees with it but not when he disagrees with it.

No, I believe a direct quote from the organizer of the SP3 campaign.

Also, something something about how Vox Day got a nomination so he must be supported by Sadpuppies somehow, despite the fact that other liberal authors got a nomination as well from SP. So somehow they're are also supported by SP.

There's a difference between getting a nomination and being actively involved in the campaign, endorsing the SP3 concept, and creating your own subtle variant of the SP3 list to campaign for.

So you're saying SP3; which wants things to be less political inso much as they believe an authors political leanings shouldn't matter, should reject an author who supports that message because of his politcal leanings? LOLK


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's an article from the other organiser of SP3. Apparently what Peregine is saying, that VoxDay was on their slate isn't even true. OMG, Peregine telling an untruth? What next?

http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/04/06/a-letter-to-the-smofs-moderates-and-fence-sitters-from-the-author-who-started-sad-puppies/

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
A small group committed to a certain agenda influenced the genre. Then another small group committed to a different agenda influenced the genre. Why does only the work of the second group merit criticism?

The difference is that the first group didn't attempt to rig the voting just to make a political point. Left-leaning authors made no effort to hide their politics in either their writing or their personal lives, but they didn't go beyond "this book is awesome" in trying to lobby for votes. The anti-SJW crowd, on the other hand, has crossed the line into "vote for this to make a political point, not because it's your favorite". Their goal isn't to reward deserving authors, it's to attack the "SJWs". Giving an award to a particular book is just a means to an end, and it doesn't really matter which book wins as long as it's one their enemies would disagree with.

Have you read anything from some of the first group reacting to this? They clearly want to ensure that only their vetted special friends make the voting process.

 Peregrine wrote:
The difference is that the first group didn't attempt to rig the voting just to make a political point.

This hits the nail on the head. Correia and friends are railing against an unorganised movement to include women and people from minorities into what was traditionally a white, male preserve through an organised voting block for white male authors.

The Hugos have always been a popularity contest, but to this point have not been purposefully rigged (with the half exception of Theodore Beale who amusingly came behind 'none of the above' in the final ballot).

But however this movement will skew the results for a few years, these people are the vestigial remnants of an ugly time in western SF and will go the way of the dinosaurs they resemble. It might take a few years, but this is their last, pitiable attempt to stay current.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Again, you said that all SPs were right wing; and they are clearly all not.

I said no such thing. Please do not build straw men to attack.

Yes, just one friggen person. And so what, someone has a boogeyman right-wing world belief. Hardly evidence of a crime, and hardly evidence that the movement is right wing.

The guy organizing the SP3 campaign is not just some random person. And yes, it is evidence that the movement is right-wing because the organizer's explicit goal is to promote a right-wing (or at least anti-left) agenda.