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.

 .Mikes. wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

No its more of idea that people will reject anyone based on any thing that is not their belief.

How conveniently unprovable.

Well look at a current event the Badger Brigade was kicked out of a feminist convention based on the whole idea they had a single gamer tag icon thing at their booth. And were kicked out because they 'harassed' a speaker.

They were kicked out because they believed in something else that the feminists didn't they argued and talked and were kicked out for their beliefs not for their actions.

Unprovable? Yes. We can't prove what they believe in, but it does happen.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well look at a current event the Badger Brigade was kicked out of a feminist convention based on the whole idea they had a single gamer tag icon thing at their booth. And were kicked out because they 'harassed' a speaker.

They were kicked out because they believed in something else that the feminists didn't they argued and talked and were kicked out for their beliefs not for their actions.

Unprovable? Yes. We can't prove what they believe in, but it does happen.

This has nothing to do with the supposed rejection of books based on ideology. Could you provide proof of your claims about books instead of going off onto a tangent about some completely unrelated event?

Also, let's not pretend that they're just poor innocent victims who happened to have a gamer icon. You're talking about a group of men's rights activists who are proud members of the "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" crowd. It's not really much of a surprise that a feminist convention wouldn't be very interested in hosting a group that is strongly opposed to feminism.

 Peregrine wrote:

If a book has a neo-nazi who wrote a mass selling book it is fine for him to receive the hugo award. AS long as he or she or a transgender person are not a criminal who is spouting murder.

...

Is there some kind of typo in here, or did you really just say something that absurd?

I may be wrong, but having spoken with Ash a bunch of time, I now believe it might be more of a problem with English as a second language. You are not a native English speaker, Ash, are you?

 Peregrine wrote:
You're talking about a group of men's rights activists who are proud members of the "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" crowd. It's not really much of a surprise that a feminist convention wouldn't be very interested in hosting a group that is strongly opposed to feminism.

It was not even a feminist convention. "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" views are just not very popular outside of the internet, unsurprisingly. The fact they apparently got the booth under the pretense it was about an actually completely unrelated webcomics did not help either.

It was not even a feminist convention. "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" views are just not very popular outside of the internet, unsurprisingly. The fact they apparently got the booth under the pretense it was about an actually completely unrelated webcomics did not help either.

Alison Tieman is the founder of the Honey Badger Brigade, they signed up under HBB unlike what others are trying to slander them with, they were selling and advertising her Comics Merch with the Vivian James shirts being a secondary form of profit.

Also, let's not pretend that they're just poor innocent victims who happened to have a gamer icon. You're talking about a group of men's rights activists who are proud members of the "SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS RUIN EVERYTHING" crowd. It's not really much of a surprise that a feminist convention wouldn't be very interested in hosting a group that is strongly opposed to feminism.

It is when they use the pretense of harassment (Proven false through audio), call Police on them when they were off a bit later talking to fans in an unrelated area, and generally slander them as best as they could in order to promote the fact that they did nothing wrong, except for banning women with different political views.

I may be wrong, but having spoken with Ash a bunch of time, I now believe it might be more of a problem with English as a second language. You are not a native English speaker, Ash, are you?

No Its more of I study so many different languages I get confused sometimes on the combination of words. Plus I am responding so quickly that I forget entire words.

This has nothing to do with the supposed rejection of books based on ideology. Could you provide proof of your claims about books instead of going off onto a tangent about some completely unrelated event?

Well it is very similar to the current situation where people are rejected based on their beliefs and not being in their group.

 .Mikes. wrote:
You keep going on about this clique but have yet to offer any definition of what it is, or indeed any proof it actually exists.

Feel free to use your next post to provide these details.

Who are trufans? What do you call SMOFs? How do you classify the group of regular WorldCon attendees and Hugo voters? Who are the small group of people that Martin references being at the convention every year organizing parties and meetings for the Hugo's? Did you read Eric Flint's essay on the Hugo's? Do you disagree with his analysis of Hugo voters being a small insular group whose personal preferences determine the nominees? Do you dispute the number of ballots and votes published on the official Hugo website? Can you explain how certain editors and journalists/bloggers can write about nominees before that information is publicized?

Why did Sad Puppies 2 generate so much controversy with a small slate that only generated a few nominees? Why did it create enough outrage to warrant national media attention?

Is it mere coincidence that multiple media outlets published almost identical slanderous demonstrably false SP3 hit pieces at the same time without contacting SP3 for input, rebuttal or providing any links or full direct quotes to the campaign instead of creating straw men?

Why did 2 authors have to withdraw their best novel nominations because of one person who suggested them? Why should authors be harassed pressured and have their careers jeopardized over something so inane as who likes their stories? The stories were good, well reviewed by fans, eligible for Hugo's and there is literally no affiliation on any level with them and Vox Day but because the "wrong" person liked their stories, something that the authors literally have no control over, force must be applied to them to make them renounce their nominations. Who is applying this force? Who believes that the Hugo's shouldn't be determined by the quality of eligible stories but instead be based on the subjective judgment of the quality of individual fans of their work?

Eric Flint clearly and eloquently explained why it is difficult forl popular authors like Jim Butcher to win Hugo's when much or all of their output in a given year consists of novels in an ongoing series. However, I haven't found any evidence of backlash directed at Butcher's nomination or pressure being applied to make rules changes or make Butcher refuse his nomination because his novel is part of an ongoing series. Nobody is making reasoned arguments based on story content or the structure of a series, instead everything is focused on the wrong fans voting. Who are these people that believe the wrong fans are.voting? Why do they feel entitled to the power to determine who should be allowed to vote for Hugo's and how they should be allowed to vote?

People like Martin and Flint state that the Hugo's are voted on by a small number of people who represent a very tiny niche of fandom and that campaigning for Hugo's occurs behind the scenes every year and people accept it as true and an organic product of the insular nature of the group of regular attendees and voters. SP says the same thing and people call them crazy conspiracy theorists.

 Asherian Command wrote:
No Its more of I study so many different languages I get confused sometimes on the combination of words.

So English is your native language?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Plus I am responding so quickly that I forget entire words.

Well, really, on a textual media like a forum, you should take the time to write clear and comprehensible messages. Else you are going to get angry when you will feel like people misrepresented your opinion, when actually you just did not express it clearly.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Well it is very similar to the current situation where people are rejected based on their beliefs and not being in their group.

You still haven't provided proof of this claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
How do you classify the group of regular WorldCon attendees and Hugo voters? Who are the small group of people that Martin references being at the convention every year organizing parties and meetings for the Hugo's? Did you read Eric Flint's essay on the Hugo's? Do you disagree with his analysis of Hugo voters being a small insular group whose personal preferences determine the nominees? Do you dispute the number of ballots and votes published on the official Hugo website? Can you explain how certain editors and journalists/bloggers can write about nominees before that information is publicized?

Let me add a question: do you understand the difference between "voting here doesn't necessarily match the opinions of a larger community" and "voting here is biased along ideological lines"? The answer sure seems to be "no".

Why did Sad Puppies 2 generate so much controversy with a small slate that only generated a few nominees? Why did it create enough outrage to warrant national media attention?

Because the guy behind it openly said "I'm doing this for political reasons" and people don't like the idea of turning a literary award into a contest to see which "side" in a political debate is best at organizing its voting.

Why did 2 authors have to withdraw their best novel nominations because of one person who suggested them?

Because Vox Day is an absolutely repulsive person and most reasonable people would be at least a bit uncomfortable about being associated with him. He's a proud racist who talks about white superiority and called a black scifi author "subhuman", a proud sexist who thinks that women shouldn't have been given the right to vote and blames "sluts" for being too picky about giving sex to men for that suicidal pilot, a creepy "pickup artist" with endless advice on how to be more "alpha" and manipulate women into having sex with you, etc. Would you really want to be a pawn in his political game?

And let's not leave the Sad Puppies campaign blameless either. It must suck to finally get your name on the ballot but know that the nomination has been tainted by an organized voting campaign, ensuring that even if you win you'll always have to wonder if you really got it on your own merits. It's not hard to see how someone could think "I'll try again next year" would be a better alternative.

Why should authors be harassed pressured and have their careers jeopardized over something so inane as who likes their stories?

Who exactly is having their careers jeopardized? Do you have evidence for pressure from publishers (or other significant people in the business with the ability to hurt a career) to withdraw stories, or are you just assuming that any criticism of Sad Puppies is automatically damaging to a career?

However, I haven't found any evidence of backlash directed at Butcher's nomination or pressure being applied to make rules changes or make Butcher refuse his nomination because his novel is part of an ongoing series.

What's your point? Why would we expect anyone to apply that pressure?

Why do they feel entitled to the power to determine who should be allowed to vote for Hugo's and how they should be allowed to vote?

Because it's very obvious why turning the award into a contest about which "side" is best at organizing its voters would permanently destroy the credibility of the Hugos. It's not about the "wrong" people voting, it's about organized voting for political reasons.

SP says the same thing and people call them crazy conspiracy theorists.

No, Sad Puppies doesn't say the same thing. Martin and Flint mentioned voting preferences that had nothing to do with politics. Sad Puppies claimed that it's all about "liberal bias" and the campaigning/exclusion/etc is done for political reasons.

The quickest summation of the various puppies whining I've yet found.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And another nominee with integrity pulls out:

Edmund R. Schubert, editor of Orson Scott Card’s InterGalactic Medicine Show and nominee for a 2015 Hugo Award in the Best Professional Editor Short Form category, has declined his nomination.

In his announcement, Schubert explained, “I can’t in good conscience complain about the deck being stacked against me, and then feel good about being nominated for an award when the deck gets stacked in my favor. That would make me a hypocrite. I can’t be part of that and still maintain my integrity.”

The saga continues, this time between Torgersen and one of the people who demanded to be removed from their slate..

If you want the convo itself.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
No Its more of I study so many different languages I get confused sometimes on the combination of words.

So English is your native language?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Plus I am responding so quickly that I forget entire words.

Well, really, on a textual media like a forum, you should take the time to write clear and comprehensible messages. Else you are going to get angry when you will feel like people misrepresented your opinion, when actually you just did not express it clearly.

Correct it is my native language, but I learned so many languages as a kid, that I get them confused.

Yes I try on this types of forums, I am better public speaker than I am a forum writer.

If asked I could write some pretty good discussion points and write up entire thesis's and formal papers.