Monster Hunter Nation

Addendum to Yesterday’s Letter

Yesterday the following media outlets ran articles about the Sad Puppies campaign, in which they either directly said or insinuated that it was run and populated by racist straight white males with the goal of keeping scifi white and male. (not true)

The Telegraph
Entertainment Weekly
Salon
Huffington Post
Slash Dot
io9
The Guardian

It was almost like they were all reading off the same script.

Stupid EW

Most of them said our slate was exclusively white, straight, and male (not true)

Most of them said that last year was a big win for diversity (I believe last years winners were all white and one Asian).

Most of them said our slate was exclusively right wing (not true, in fact the majority skew left, we have socialists, liberals, moderates, libertarians, conservatives, and question marks. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that last year’s “diverse” winners all espoused the same social justice politics).

But there is no bias in this perfectly functioning system. My side said that political narrative trumped reality in this business. Believe me yet?

We’ve seen this behavior before, but never at a level so blatantly false. Truth is utterly irrelevant. Actual positions don’t matter. Our actual words are replaced with fabricated new ones in “scare quotes” or bizarre out of context nonsense.

Everyone on my side is held to account for the most outlandish thing anyone tangentially related to us says, even if they’re not on our slate, but none of the untrue, vile, rude, horrible, things said about us by our opposition is ever condemned.

In the last 24 hours I’ve watched people we nominated have to go public about their sexual orientation and politics in the hopes of not becoming targets, and staving off social justice witch hunters.

We’ve been yelled at by the inquisition for failing to notify all of our nominees that we were going to endorse their work, and that makes us bad, not the inquisition.

Don’t worry, at this rate, if we keep this up the SJWs will make it so that everyone in fandom will have to wear helpful little color coded armbands that explain which group you belong to.

To the the SMOFs, moderates, new comers, and fence sitters I addressed yesterday, yes, we have disagreements with you. We’re happy to discuss them. We are not, however, happy to be libeled as the vilest forms of scum to walk the earth, and we are not happy to live in fear of career destruction.

You want my part of fandom to coexist peacefully? You want to work out our differences and keep the awards meaningful? So do we. Though we disagree on the details and the issues, we also love this stuff.

But coordinated slander campaigns, lies, character assassinations, threats, witch hunts? No… We won’t stand for that.

You want to know why we’re here now, loud, annoying you, upsetting your apple cart? Read those articles. Look at the bylines by culture warriors who all share the same set of politics. You say that you don’t like how we made the awards political. Newsflash, they have been for a long time, only you wouldn’t know it because my side didn’t bother to take the field. Now we’re here, taking ground they think they own, and those culture warriors don’t give a shit about you, the authors you love, the books you read, or the future of your culture. They think they own you like they own every other group, and they’ll lie, slander, threaten, coerce, defame, sabotage, and hate anyone who stands up to them.

No More.

EDIT: Brad Torgersen, who has the helm for SP3 chimed in too. He got libeled as a white supremacist on his birthday.

https://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fort-living-room/

Read that link. Look at the picture of Brad and his family. Explain to me how an Army Warrant Officer in a 20 year interracial marriage with biracial children is a white supremacist, because some trust fund babies with gender studies degrees declared it to be so.

EDIT: 8, I missed the A/V Club.

The Weber State Creative Writing Class is now open
A letter to the SMOFs, moderates, and fence sitters from the author who started Sad Puppies

Leave a Reply

470 Comments on "Addendum to Yesterday’s Letter"


Guest
Garrett Lee
1 year 1 month ago

I salute you, sir. If you decide to sue for libel and set up a legal fund, I will definitely help out. (Although, since you’ve gotten a decent amount of money from me already, I don’t think you’ll need one…)

Guest
flyergrad
1 year 1 month ago

I’d chip in for a character named after me…

Guest
Davidisontherun
1 year 1 month ago

GamerGate would help to chip in I’m sure if you planned that.

Right now the separate resistances in fandoms are like Lego bricks. They’re a real pain in the ass to these SJWs that try to stomp all over everything but we could snap the pieces together and become a 15 foot mecha bullshit destroyer. SF/F fans, gamers, comic book readers and more are finally standing up to defend the hobbies they love and will no longer capitulate like the neo-puritans are accustomed to.

I’m excited to see this victory for you guys and can’t wait for next year so I can join in.

Guest
Eli
1 year 1 month ago

You can pretty much bet that there would be people willing to chip in. We’ve already been though the “gamers are dead” articles. Boy oh boy doesn’t this spate of “sad puppies are dead” articles seem familiar.

I almost feel like JC Denton, realizing that there might actually be a real conspiracy here.

Guest
ChicagoRefugee
1 year 1 month ago

You don’t have to wait until next year! Buying a supporting membership for $40 now gets you Hugo voting rights for this year and nominating rights for next.

Plus, thanks to puppies both sad and rabid, it gets you a lot of free* reading material so you can make educated votes!

*free with purchase of Worldcon membership. contact your doctor for details.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

I think that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the SJW dominance of science fiction and fantasy. And it’s coming just in time … had it continued much longer, it might have destroyed the genres.

Guest
jdgalt
1 year 1 month ago

It’s about time. How about a new hashtag, along the lines of “So-called ‘Social Justice’ is dead!”

Guest
Charles Scott
1 year 1 month ago

I would note that Charlie Jane Anders at IO9.com was a HUGO winner in 2012 for a story published on TOR.com. Furthermore, she is published at salon.com as well. Given her numerous media connections and connections with Tor one begins to wonder if there is coordination occuring. One also notes that Gawker media was involved with Gamer Gate too.

Guest
Ratseal
1 year 1 month ago

I am glad that you are investing time in this but I am angry that it is using writing time that I need from you in order to supply my fix.

Seriously, that hit piece on Brad and yourself was nauseating.

Let’s see if anyone from the MakingLight crowd or their apologists tries to walk it back.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

https://twitter.com/CChupik/status/585460310816886784

Not happening. They’re doubling down.

Guest
S1AL
1 year 1 month ago

O.o

Well, now I have a new example of extreme irony.

Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 1 month ago

When Tempest complained about hate speech, I tweeted “Irony.”

I don’t think she got it.

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

Time for a hitler’s bunker parody.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

“Paul Weimer ‏@PrinceJvstin 2h2 hours ago
@caldodge @tinytempest @CChupik @sparkymonster Calvin, turning this into a personal attack is uncalled for.”

You’re wrong. You’re a couple of retards.

Guest
Ratseal
1 year 1 month ago

Anyone going to call out Tempest, or does she get a pass, Paul?

Guest
Eamon J. Cole
1 year 1 month ago

Pass? Paul Weimer guards her flanks.

Guest
S1AL
1 year 1 month ago

And that is a lot of territory to guard…

Guest
TomT
1 year 1 month ago

Tempest gets fisked over on according to Hoyt here. http://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/04/07/not-your-shield-rhiain/

Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 1 month ago

Looks like a bunch of folks are taking her to task. They even retweeted a few of my tweets to her.

Guest
Joshua
1 year 1 month ago

Paraphrasing a parable I read the other day, for he who has ears to hear, etc.: One day, there was a little girl, who crept up to a sleeping bear and poked it with a stick. The bear continued sleeping. The villagers who lived with the little girl paraded her bravery and gave her awards and commendations.

Thus rewarded, she went and did it again. Again, she was rewarded with adulation from her village.

A third time she went to poke the bear. This time, the bear said, “I’m sick of this BS” and with one swipe of his massive paw, killed the little girl.

Then the villagers, dismayed at the reaction, said to each other. “Wow, that was uncalled for. Disproportionate reaction.”

The end.

Guest
Stephen J.
1 year 1 month ago

Well, *killing* the little girl probably would be disproportionate. I might modify the end of your tale thusly:

A third time she went to poke the bear. The bear opened one eye and growled. Terrified, the little girl went running back to her village, and the villagers all gathered in a rage and vowed to drive off the bear: “How disproportionate a reaction, to terrify that poor helpless little girl!” Pelting the bear with pebbles and stones, they at last woke it; with a mighty roar it swept through their ranks, knocking several down and bruising them, and then lumbered off.

The villagers congratulated each other in triumph, then marched back to their homes… only to find that the bear had eaten much of their livestock and scattered the rest while they celebrated. Devastated and facing starvation, the villagers had no choice but to return to the city, where they spent the rest of their lives living as beggars.

Moral: Before you call someone’s reaction “disproportionate”, always ask, “In comparison to what?”

Guest
Joshua
1 year 1 month ago

Nah, too complicated. I like to keep things simple.

Guest
Stephen J.
1 year 1 month ago

Understandable, but beware of being too simple — if you want to present the villagers as real idiots it doesn’t do to make them look like they have a point. Even in metaphor I wouldn’t suggest killing as a proportionate response to anything but a real threat.

On the other hand, if I am being too much the editor to what was meant as a momentary gag then feel free to tell me to shove off. 🙂

Guest
Grayson
1 year 1 month ago

Could be infinitely worse….
Imagine villagers being dumb enough to get somebody like Agent Franks both annoyed and focused… 😀

Guest
Book
1 year 1 month ago

They never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever walk it back.

Instead the run to twitter and screach “LiES! ALL LIES!” (we saw you TNH. You are a ridiculous person.) and then they double down on their own slander.

They never provide quotes.
They never back up their assertions.
This is all they have.

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

Goebbels never let a little think like the truth deter him. The SJWs are no less fanatical.

Guest
Nathan
1 year 1 month ago

Salon. Wasn’t that one written by that utter idiot and disgrace to Jeopardy Arthur Chu?

Guest
Nathan
1 year 1 month ago

Okay, snide comment aside, given Chu is part of the con crowd straddling games and sci-fi, I fully expect that there were some sort of Right People whisper campaign.

Guest
Vintermann
1 year 1 month ago

Apropos Chu:

“We’ve seen this behavior before, but never at a level so blatantly false. ”

Oh, we have, we have. Sincerely, Gamergate & NotYourShield.

Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 1 month ago

“They came at us in the same old way, and we defeated them in the same old way.”

Guest
Jhelpura
1 year 1 month ago

We’ve seen this behavior before, but never at a level so blatantly false. ”

Oh, we have, we have. Sincerely, Gamergate, NotYourShield, Atheist community, Skeptic community, MRA’s.

Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 1 month ago

Chu: “Arthur Chu ‏@arthur_affect · 7h7 hours ago
@Moon_Clinic @AaronPound Baen Books Manly Man stories are actually a “marginalized” genre right now but they can’t admit that”

Oh. Really?

Guest
Wex6
1 year 1 month ago

Yes, really! Who cares about pesky bestseller lists. TWITTER HAS SPOKEN!!

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Larry, I’ve shared this elsewhere on social media, and I don’t want this to feel like spamming your pages or anything, but I want people to stand up as well.

http://tlknighton.com/?p=7023

You and Brad are “my people”. I stand by my people come hell or high water.

I’d like others to make similar stands. They have to stop thinking they can just do this crap, and no one else will care.

Guest
Vintermann
1 year 1 month ago

Him and Brad are probably not “my” people in any important sense. But they’re still PEOPLE, dammit. Anyone who actually cares about fairness, justice and truth as something independent from political tribalism has a great occasion to show it right now. You go, puppies.

Guest
Mike Mike
1 year 1 month ago

Isabella Biedenharn’s is a casualty of the SJW machine. She took their narrative and posted it without any research… which has probably served her well in the past. Fortunately EW.com took some steps to correct the libel, and this morning it looks like her twitter handle disappeared from the article and they finally removed the racist and misogyny tags.

My question is, how long until the SJWs claim Ms. Biendenharn has been harassed into hiding by #gamergaters?

Guest
Michael Ellis
1 year 1 month ago

“Harassed into hiding by #GamerGates”? Dude, have you not figured out that whatever you’ve read about GamerGate in the media just as false as what you’ve ready about Sad Puppies?

Guest
Mike Mike
1 year 1 month ago

Yeah dude. I’m a Sad Puppy 2 and 3 voter. The point I was making is the same as yours… reality doesn’t matter to them. Their next move is to make Biendenharn a victim… watch it happen.

Guest
Lea
1 year 1 month ago

Isabella Biedenharn’s is a casualty of the SJW machine. She took their narrative and posted it without any research…

I think that makes her a casuality of her own poor journalism skills. I’m not interested in making allowances for people who will smear someone without even doing the most utterly basic research first. She should lose her job.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

To the head. And botched it. So it’s a slow, painful death.

Guest
Desiderius
1 year 1 month ago

Birdman came out ok

Guest
Pugmak
1 year 1 month ago

It makes her a willing soldier of the SJW army. Nothing less.

There was no part or piece of ignorance or mistake on her part. She wasn’t mislead or misinformed. She is a misleader and misinformer.

Guest
Book
1 year 1 month ago

Journalists: “we heard someone call these guys racist/ misogynist/ etc, so we decided to write an article WHILE DOING NO RESEARCH AT ALL.”

This is not the behavior of people interested in promoting the truth. This is what hacks do.

Guest
Lea
1 year 1 month ago

I just read the guardian article and while it’s clear they got the same press release at least they include a quote from Larry.

Guest
Back from Space
1 year 1 month ago

Basically, a new headline should read, “Dopey Millennial* Mugged by Reality.”

* – I understand that there are many Millennials who are not divorced from reality, but they aren’t the ones beclowning themselves as our special snowflake here just did.

The problem is that the propaganda factories we laughingly call “universities” and “colleges” are not only failing to prepare students for real life, but are actively sabotaging their ability to properly function in it. Practical skills and critical thinking have been replaced with the academic version of conspiracy theories, warped perspectives, and unrealistic expectations. Graduates are incapable of balancing a budget, but can likely recite the entire hagiography of RadFems. This leads many of them to live in a daydream of ~making a difference~ which is undermined by their inability to see and deal with reality as it is. And the Academic Industrial Complex has crippled them.

Guest
Differently
1 year 1 month ago

There are many universities, some good at what you talk about, some bad. If a student doesn’t research the university before deciding to go to it, that is a poor decision. But there are a number of private and public universities with great programs that teach a number of practical skills.

Guest
Javaed
1 year 1 month ago

So probably a side decision, but as a millennial I can tell you that college was portrayed to me as a necessity if you wanted to make anything more than minimum wage by society in general. There was never a discussion about trying to plan for an actual career, and there was never any discussion about the consequences of student loans.

I was lucky in that my parents were intelligent (and gave me good advice) and that I was offered a rather generous scholarship program. I escaped the trap of student loan debt. I’m in the minority though, and I have several friends who’ll be paying off their loans for the rest of their lives because they listened to rather awful advice from people they trusted when they were still kids.

Guest
Javaed
1 year 1 month ago

* Side discussion… not decision. Darn you auto-correct.

Guest
Differently
1 year 1 month ago

I’m a millennial also, and I am also one of the lucky ones that won’t have horrific amounts of debt. I agree that more should be done to inform people about the problems of student debt.
But college does teach a lot, and a lot of jobs do require college degrees.

Guest
sean
1 year 1 month ago

I give it maybe another 24hrs before they say she was harrassed into hiding Orrrr…throw her silly ass under the wheels of the bus. Remember the latter is a tried and true tactic of theirs too

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

EW will throw her under the bus. The SJWs will canonize the crazy cat lady.

Guest
Ashterah
1 year 1 month ago

If she’s a casualty, she’s a casualty of her own cupidity. You DO NOT do journalism that way. Even “blog journalism.” Sweet fkn chrst! It’s like “journalism for dummies” never even made it on her radar.

If she is excoriated for her own actions, so be it. There will NEVER be accountability unless these so-called victims aren’t called out for what they are – perpetrators.

Guest

[…] Update: Larry notices the spread: […]

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

The reason that they all look alike, is because they all came from the same source, I’m sure. Just as the news media formed a secret journo list to keep their left wing news stories in line, I’m sure that the ‘privileged class’ who have been the gatekeepers for the Hugos sent out a nice press release yesterday far and wide.
Odds are that many places engaged their brains and their lawyers however before attempting to publish such blatant libel.

We have all seen, both on this forum and elsewhere, how much the people who think they ‘own’ the Hugos, because they have worked on them for ‘so long now’ feel about us, the great unwashed masses, upsetting their apple cart.

Guess I’ll have to go buy a voting membership now after all, because I’m definitely not the right type of person, and how dare I question those that are, right?

Now excuse me as I get back to my own writing.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Got mine yesterday. I suspect it takes a while before one’s name shows up on the list.

Working on my own writing too.

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

Welcome to the ranks of wrongfans enjoying wrongfun and engaging in crimethink.

Guest
Coop
1 year 1 month ago

So they shit their pants over SP3 bloc voting, yet they have no problem with bloc journalism?

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

Anything they do is automatically good. Anything you do is automatically bad.

Double standards are twice as good as standards.

Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 1 month ago

I’m stunned at how weak the other side really is. For all their bluster, they couldn’t keep SP3 off the ballot. The EW article: total failure.

Right now I’m singing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JRgHol94Xc

Guest
keranih
1 year 1 month ago

Yah know, I really wasn’t one to believe in conspiracies and shadowy grandmasters, or that professional writers would stoop to extremes like this.

I thought it was more just a loose group of cranky people who disagreed with other people on their particular taste in books, and maybe got a little hot under the collar in defense of their art.

I am deeply sorry to have been shown wrong.

Guest
Back from Space
1 year 1 month ago

Nobody in Gamergate thought that there was Journolist-style collusion going on in the gaming industry, either. Not until they found themselves on the receiving end of the SJW outrage machine and Milo “Based Milo” Yiannopoulos blew the lid off it did Gamergate collectively jawdrop and post on 8chan that they owed conservatives who have been complaining about this for years an apology.

Nothing quite like having the Cabal of Crazy descend upon you personally to make you realize they really do exist.

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

Not even a well run conspiracy.

Amateur retards. The bear they have been poking with a stick for years has confused them by ripping their heads off.

Guest
keranih
1 year 1 month ago

And of the two, I think it’s the incompetence, rather than the malice, which bothers me the most.

A more perfect evil would have some…majesty to it. Grandeur. Maybe a flaming eyeball or two.

You know. Old school.

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

We have the flaming eyeball. They have mere retardation.

Revel in our evil.

Guest
Geodkyt
1 year 1 month ago

The problem with battling the inept is that there is no joy, no honor, no Art, in beating the ever loving shit like Tony Stark suiting up to take on the Lollipop Guild.

Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 1 month ago

Frickin’ sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads!

Guest
keranih
1 year 1 month ago

Jumping out of a plane with snakes in it!

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

A little late to this thread, but I have to say your comment takes the cake.

Majesty indeed.

You, sir or ma’am, leave me grinning widely and laughing with glee. Well done.

🙂

Guest
Guess
1 year 1 month ago

Are any of the people leading the charge for Sad Puppies going to Worldcon? I think i read a post by Larry last year that said your fans don’t go to Worldcon. I dont think they will start attending unless authors they like attend and sit on Panels. I think Brad Torgerson wrote that he is getting called up by the military at that time so he can’t go.

The people who run worldcon are volunteers. My understanding is they have to spend their own money to win the bid. Did they do anything to you? I really think people involved should try to attend. I am not saying ‘should’ since I know most writers dont make a lot of money.

John C Wright has 6 nominations. If he can afford it he should go, sit on panels and discuss his work. He doesn’t sell like you do and has a family, so I won’t go ‘should attend’. I don’t know how long of a trip it is for him.

Larry… Worldcon leads more heavily towards the SF side than the fantasy side. There also seems to be an under-representation of Urban Fantasy fandom. When is the last time an Urban Fantasy book of any kind won a Hugo for best novel? Brandon Sanderson had a good blog post on the Worldcon preference for SF.

If your don’t care enough about the con to attend then what is the point to this other than to get a rise out of people? I don’t know if you stated whether you are going to Worldcon or not. I am sure the people who run the con would be happy to have you sit on panels. Its more of an SF panel than a fantasy panel. SF has alot of military and weapons. Having a gun expert discuss how to write about guns would be interesting to alot of fans who don’t even like Urban Fantasy. I think you have a new series come out about that time, so not sure if you can make it.

Guest
Differently
1 year 1 month ago

Fantasy has actually done about as well in the best novel category as Sci-Fi for the past ~14 years. Before that, it was all sci-fi, pretty much.
Fantasy won in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012. Two of those were Gaiman.

Guest
keranih
1 year 1 month ago

Gaiman doesn’t count. They re-wrote the rules for the World Fantasy Award so the prose writers wouldn’t have to go nose-to-nose with him.

Don’t get me wrong, he’s done some lower-quality things, but still.

Years where Gaiman wins don’t count for anything except ‘Gaiman won.’

Guest
Calvin Dodge
1 year 1 month ago

(yes, I’m the Calvin excoriated in that tweet).

I’m not going this year. But since I live near Houston, and next year’s Worldcon is in Kansas City, I’m thinking about how much fun it would be to attend it while wearing an SP4 T-shirt (or even something by Mad Mike, if I can find one that’s not too off-color for ME).

Guest
Joseph Capdepon II
1 year 1 month ago

I’m done. I tried being nice to them. I tried being polite when engaging them. I’m done.

If they want war, by the gods, they will have war.

Guest
windsong
1 year 1 month ago

I just want to thank you, Larry. For standing up and being willing to put yourself in the line of fire, and for consistently making your position clear.

The outright lies and liberal outpouring of hate is sickening to see, and you have handled it with far more grace and dignity than most. Thank you.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Listen, when the core institutions of a literary genre have fallen so far that we have to debate and explain the concept of rules or how law and equal protection works, that is a core genre that has fallen farther than I honestly ever thought a group of Americans could.

For that to not only happen to a group of ARTISTS but one’s involved in a genre that specializes in perceptual shifts is a disgrace. These are the redneckiest of the rednecks, the worst sort of conformists who don’t possess a brain in their skulls. Reading Making Light, or Scalzi’s commenters or those of James Nicholls is like reading Bernal Diaz in the original early 16th century spanish but if he was retarded. Joinville’s account of the later Crusades seems like that of an enlightened man in comparison, and I think Europeans were still a few centuries away from imbibing mercury to cure STDs. In fact off the top of my head I can’t remember ever reading first-hand accounts from antiquity written by people as routinely stupid as our SJWs.

After months of combing through research I still manage to find comments that are more stunning than the last. It is an endless recycling of comments like “Space: not just for white men anymore” over and over and over again times a thousand.

This is the fearful world George Orwell imagined; yet another bit of irony we now need load-bearing gothic buttresses for. People who write anti-KKK essays are “internet racists.” People who defame one billion people every single day because of their perceived skin color are “anti-racists.”

I honestly don’t know if there is any civilization which ever existed while still having a system of writing that has ever been as immune to facts, reason and logic as our SJWs. I can understand the bigots among them – they’re simply liars. But what about the idiots who really think they’re running some sort of underground railroad in FRICKIN’ SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY!

Lord help these people. I can only imagine the stark hell they live in inside their heads that drives them to behave so.

Guest
S1AL
1 year 1 month ago

I’m insulted on behalf of all the rednecks I know.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

(Applause). Once again, you have nailed it sir.

Guest
Wes S.
1 year 1 month ago

The problem is, they don’t call it hell.

They call it home.

And they think it’s so wonderful the rest of us should live there too. Whether we want to or not.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

They say ‘white, straight and male’ as if that was a bad thing.

I kid, I kid, of COURSE it’s a bad thing to them.

I’ll be at Worldcon, it’s in Spokane so it’s too close to miss. But I was at Norwescon just last week, too. (Watched the Hugo noms get announced live) Though there was a whole SJW track there, there was also a strong militarySF track, which was a pleasant surprise.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

More racial defamation in scare quotes from an SJW:

“tnielsenhayden retweeted Madeline Ashby‏ @MadelineAshby That moment when you explain the Sad Puppies & Hugo noms to your mother: ‘Because some straight white men think they own the future.'”

Ashby once apologized to an audience for being on an all-white convention panel, so that’s the level of brainpower in play.

“Madeline Ashby says: This weekend I was on an all-white panel on multiculturalism in SF, and we all agreed it was bullshit and apologized to our audience —- many of whom were people of colour…”

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

So why didn’t some of these people of color volunteer to sit a panel? it’s not like the bar to entry is all that high (cripes, *I* have been asked to be on a panel) and concoms are always begging for more panelists. If you don’t like who’s doing the job, volunteer yourself to do it better, and that includes being on panels.

Guest
great unknown
1 year 1 month ago

In your books, there is very little whining, and a lot of “shoot first, shoot last, and shoot at any point in between.” So when do we see the lawsuits?

Hopefully before poor little victim Biedenharn indeed goes into hiding to avoid that vicious patriarchal attack called a subpoena.

The discovery alone would be worthwhile. I suspect enough info would turn up to lead to a RICO case.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

To the following
rcade
Someone Else
Chris Gerrib
R. Maddox
Lamont Cranston
Lisa Hertel
and anyone else that oppose or disapproves of the Sad Puppies.

Please read the articles listed.
After that try and ignoring your personal feelings toward the sad puppies crowd and answer the following questions.

Specificly:
Are the articles factually correct or not?
Did the articles present multiple sides of the issues as befitting journalstic standards or not?
Is the the type of discussion or conversion you want to see in the media or not?

Please explain why you think what you think. Also what are you going to do about it.

(you are under no obligation answer or to do anything about these articles, but neither are you under a obligation to do anything here either.)

Guest
Back from Space
1 year 1 month ago

Lamont Cranston, last I saw, was too busy concern trolling about “OMG VOX DAY VOX DAY!!1eleventy!1!!!” to be capable of forming a coherent sentence.

Not that you can expect a quality response after he’s finally sobered up, since he went down the Guilt By Association fallacy rabbithole without stopping to think that sane people are going to take one look at the circlejerk he’s either attempting to suck up to or is himself a part of and go, “lolnope”. Vox ranting on his blog is not even remotely the same as actively sabotaging the reputations and careers of innocent people.

Guest
Delayna
1 year 1 month ago

I’m not going back to yesterday’s comment section to find it, but a troll listed a bunch of alleged VoxDay quotes and demanded that Larry comment/explain/commit seppuku.

Listing outrageous quotes or acts from someone associated with a conservative is a long-standing troll technique for avoiding debating a conservative about what *he* does or thinks.

But it occurred to me that it is also a fantastic way of getting dubious or downright nonfactual “quotes” out on the Internet associated with someone’s name. When they ask a person other than the person “quoted” it’s not surprising when an out and out lie goes unfisked. Not to mention the usual games of taking things out of context, editing out parts that would show he wasn’t serious, etc.

Just a thought, for the next time you see unlinked “quotes” pop up from a troll.

Thanks, Larry for taking the fight to the SJWs. I purchased one of your books that I somehow overlooked…

Guest
Andy
1 year 1 month ago

I just noticed rcade over at Black Gate smugly declaring victory over Larry. The thread as a whole is almost hilariously behind the times as the editor keeps insisting that the Sad Puppies could win over neutral observers if only they just tried being nice.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Squuuuuueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

Being nice has resulted in decades of shaming. Screw nice.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

I have no way of knowing but I suspect O’Neil and Black Gate were pranked. What better way to mess with someone than to get them on an SP set of nominations? O’Neil’s been active in supporting all this diversity/defamation shit and if you disagree he deletes you and starts making smug comments about his porch. HIs porch is in Canada. He should go back there.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

In regard to this, please see the following post from rcade, posted on BlackGate:
********************************************

“OH, I get it, we don’t vary in a way YOU APPROVE OF, so we’re wrong to vote for the authors we like.”

You don’t get it, apparently.

What you are doing that I dislike is bloc voting. When the rest of us are nominating things we like as individuals in good faith, it makes it easy for you to take all the nominations by voting for exactly the same nominees in lockstep. Your group is a minority of the nominators but you chose all the nominees in many of the categories and chose a large majority of the ballot.

I don’t like Correia’s solution of multiple competing slates any more than I like the stunt his pals pulled this year. I’m going to keep voting as an individual, and I’ll keep voting No Award above any slate-imposed nominee to reject that tactic.

Correia admitted to me on his blog that he has zero evidence that any novel/novella/novelette category of the Hugos has been unfairly manipulated in the past 10 years. The “SJW victimization” story he and Brad Torgersen are peddling is just a myth to motivate people to part with $40 and vote for his bloc.

Comment by rcade – April 7, 2015 8:37 pm
***********************************************
Is this true?

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Not quite true. The closest I found to what was said is this.

rcade, on April 7, 2015 at 12:42 am said:

Correia: You have no proof the Hugos were successfully gamed in past years. I will buy a copy of every novel you’ve written if you can prove that even a single novel/novella/novelette category was stuffed with a secret bloc’s nominees in the past 10 years.

correia45, on April 7, 2015 at 1:17 am said:

Luckily for you, they’re not that stupid, but I won’t miss the sales.

Larry has said in the past he has not seen any evidence that the Administrators of the Hugos that count ballots have unfairly manipulated the vote.

But there is evidence of the dreadful block voting that so concerns rcade has been going on behind the scenes for years.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Um. I was a neutral observer (who really couldn’t care less what wins a Hugo). Then I read both sides, as much as I could find. Guess which side was nicer.

Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 1 month ago

Damn it. Black Gate is a great site, but this last week, I might as well be reading Tor.com . . .

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Thank you to the following :
rcade
Someone Else
Chris Gerrib
R. Maddox
Lamont Cranston
Lisa Hertel
and anyone else that oppose or disapproves of the Sad Puppies.

Your answers to my questions have spoken lounder then words and are just what I expected of people with such high moral standards and sterling character.

Guest
R. Maddox
1 year 1 month ago

Sorry, I just now returned to the blog and saw this. But I don’t see what it has to do with my concerns over bloc voting. Are some people who disagree with the Sad & Rabid Puppies getting hysterial and behaving reprehensibly? Yes. Do I find such behavior shameful? Yes. But my disagreement with the various puppies has nothing to do with any impression of your politics or goals; I even agree
with the stated goal of aiming for a greater variety in the shortlist. What I disagree with (and strongly) is the bloc voting tactic. To lay out my reasoning once more:

1) I want more variety in the Hugo shortlist.
2) Bloc voting produces LESS variety in the shortlist and rewards those voting out of some agenda beyond the quality of the work (because such voters are more likely to vote in lockstep)
3) I believe the best way to prevent further sweeps by lockstep-blocs is rule changes that allow expansion of the electorate (i.e. lessening/dropping
the fee to vote) and/or different voting systems that produce ballots more representative of the full spectrum of the electorate (such as STV and some of the other system alternatives currently being discussed)
4) Rule changes are difficult and large organizations have a lot of inertia. I believe “No Award” is the best chance for me to send a strong signal that change is necessary.

In summary, I’m not voting “No Award” out of spite or malice. I respect that the Sad Puppies have acted in accordance with your principles; but voting No Award to stymie bloc voting and as an expression of desire for change is in accordance with my principles.

Guest
keranih
1 year 1 month ago

If I understand you right, you’re voting No Award because that’s your path to stopping slate voting, is that correct?

Or is your intent just to signal for change?

Guest
R. Maddox
1 year 1 month ago

Yes, I am voting No Award both to indicate my displeasure with bloc voting and to signal a change in nomination process is needed. And yes, I really feel that strongly about lockstep bloc voting being a terrible thing for the Hugos, though I realize others don’t share my opinion. I’m not trying to dictate anyone else’s vote. I’m just explaining my reasoning for mine.

Guest
keranih
1 year 1 month ago

1) How are you defining “lockstep” voting?

2) What would it take to prove to you that there was no lockstep voting, by your definition?

Guest
R. Maddox
1 year 1 month ago

1) A bunch of people all voting for the exact same slate of works, as Vox Day encouraged his Rabid Puppies to do (and apparently succeeded – or do you think that his own tiny publishing company really produced nearly all the year’s best short works? Even without seeing exact nomination totals, if a ballot is almost identical to a single given slate, then you can be fairly certain that slate’s proponents voted in lockstep. This is why the RP slate did far better than the SP slate; SP voters used slate as guideline, RP voters went in lockstep.)

2) The data on nominations and vote totals provided by the Hugo administrators after the awards are over should show enough detail to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.

Guest
Geodkyt
1 year 1 month ago

#2 the data has been released and analyzed by people who *aren’t* part of, affiliated with, or have ever said (AFAIK) anything supportive of Sad Puppies.

The conclusion was it wasn’t lockstep voting – it was more voters. The Sad Puppy list showed no more “lockstep” voting than the other nominee candidates.

So, by your own declared standard, what you claim to be fighting *didn’t occurs* as alleged.

But you’re going to lockstep No Award anyway, aren’t you?

Guest
Geodkyt
1 year 1 month ago

Sorry, but shouting, “But, LOCKSTEP, LOCKSTEP, LOCKSTEP!” doesn’t prove your point.

Mathematical analysis of the vote totals for the nominations establish that, even with a slate of recommendations, Sad Puppy voters didn’t vote in lockstep.

Guest
Differently
1 year 1 month ago

Most of us are in favor 1 & 3.
2 can be dealt with by increasing the number of popular independent slates to 20+, which would seem a good goal for next year.
For 4, don’t you think you should try to change the rules before No Awarding everything?
There are better ways to try to change the system than No Awarding deserving works. It would seem more ethical to try to change the rules before using No Award on deserving works.

Guest
R. Maddox
1 year 1 month ago

I don’t feel merely increasing the number of slates is a practical solution given the current nomination rules and approximate electorate size. A bunch of slates like SP’s slate this year (where people did not necessarily vote in lockstep) can still easily be outweighed by a relatively small set of people voting in lockstep, as the Rabid Puppies did this year. It is the lockstep bloc tactic I particularly do not want to see take over the awards, no matter which clique happens to use it.

The only defense available in the current system is to No-Award any and every bloc. I know that doesn’t come without cost. I do feel bad for the deserving authors and professionals who may lose out on awards; just as I feel bad for those who lost a chance at nomination because of the Rabid Puppies’ lockstep voting. That’s why this whole thing is so frustrating and sad for me; I feel I’ve been left with no good options for response, only a choice between unhappy ones. But I feel the real hypocrisy on my part would be to say, “I detest bloc voting…but hey, this book I like, so I’ll give it a pass.” No. Even if next year some bloc appears that’s magically “All the Authors R. Maddox Loves Best”, I will still No Award it. And hope that the Worldcon folks attending the business meetings this year and next get the message that a change in nomination process is desperately needed. All voting systems can be gamed; but some are more difficult to game than others. My personal hope for the Hugos is that a different, more robust system can be put in place that can mitigate the issue until the electorate really does increase enough that blocs are not a worry.

Guest
Brian
1 year 1 month ago

So your going to contest “bloc” voting by bloc voting No Award.

Whatever, I am going to read all the nominated works, and vote accordingly. I hope the majority does as well and No Award bullshit is put to rest.

If after the numbers are released and changes are proposed to the Nomination process then so be it.

Guest
keranih
1 year 1 month ago

My objection to you using this tactic is

1) all of the voting changes can be gamed, so you will not remove locksteping even by changing the nomination process,

2) The changes won’t take place for at least two years

3) No awarding will not prevent any slate from appearing next year (and there is already a SP4 in the process)

4) A much stronger signal could be sent, re: nomination process, by No Awarding EVERYTHING, rather than just the slates that you know about.

So on these grounds I hope to persuade you that your proposed solution won’t work, and urge you to consider another.

(Speaking just for myself, I do appreciate your distinction between SP & RP. Thank you.)

Guest
MattK
1 year 1 month ago

What if… these books that have been nominated this year REALLY ARE the ones that the majority of the voters find to be the best, regardless of any political opinions about the authors or the books themselves? What if there are 2,000 new voters next year, who just discovered that they can nominate, and they all like, oh, Christopher Nuttall and Jack Campbell, to pull two names out of my butt more or less at random? What if the enormous majority of SF/F fans, who have never voted for a Hugo because many of them either 1) never heard of the Hugo awards, or 2) didn’t know all you had to do was pony up $40 to be a part of it all, suddenly weigh in over the next couple of years, attracted by the controversy, and suddenly you discover that the majority of them have radically different taste than you, and your favorite books never get nominated?

What if we all wake up one day and discover that speculative fiction has gone mainstream, and there are tens of millions of fans; they just don’t buy or approve of the crap that’s been passed off as SF/F by most of the mainstream publishing houses for the last 15 years or so? Oh, wait: that’s happening right now.

Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.

Guest
Calvin Dodge
1 year 1 month ago

If most people willing to pony up (is that speciesist?) $40 prefer a different book, I’ll live with that, the way I lived with the majority of voters electing (and re-electing) an incompetent politician.

And if there are “tens of millions” of “mainstream” SF fans buying books, I rather doubt anyone who rates his/her success by “books sold” rather than by “awards granted” will complain. (it’s a trivial exercise to search THIS blog for examples of that attitude).

But I rather doubt huge numbers of mundanes (not intended as a pejorative) will spend $40 for the privilege of voting for their favorite works.

Guest
Differently
1 year 1 month ago

@Maddox
We have yet to see if 20+ slates will be practical, I agree. I trust if 20 more slates pop up and 7000+ (or some other number) voters join, that you will withdraw your objection.
According to the way you say you will vote, though, slates get to control what you vote for. If No Awarding is very effective in the Hugos this year, someone could say “I don’t like these works, and they’re likely to be nominated. I’m going to put them on a slate so that Hugo voters will No Award them”.
Basically, if you No Award slates, slates get to control how you vote. You’ve given up your autonomy as a voter almost as much as a hardcore slate voter would.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Thank you for replying.

I saw your comments in the previous thread and appreciate your concern about block voting. But that is problem inherent to any type of voting and I don’t foresee any final solution that will resolve that.

My questions were asked not in regard to block voting but to learn what the critics of sad puppies think regarding the slander and character assassination illustrated by the linked articles.

Their response would illustrate their character.
I believe you have illustrated your character.

The other people named may have not seen my questions but I suspect they are merely drive by character assassins that would approve of the linked articles.

I understand your thoughts about using “No Award” as a protest, but that appears self-defeating to me and if it becomes the wide spread then the Hugo’s will be destroyed by a form of mutually assured destruction. I would ask that you vote for what seems best to you.

Guest
Brian
1 year 1 month ago

Calvin,

The main reason I became a hugo voter was for the packet of ebooks at a really good price. The 2nd reason was, I wanted my voice counted as nothing in recent memory was a book I thought was the best of SciFi and Fantasy.

I won’t be using No Award. I like the proposed change of 4 Nominations and 6 Entries.

Guest
Sombrero Joe (@sombrero_joe)
1 year 1 month ago

Seeing the kind of shitstorm you’ve been going through and how much your blog posts resonate with me I’m surprised I haven’t heard about you. Combine that with the fact that I’m a huge reader… well I have a lot of books from an author I respect to catch up on!

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

It’s Sabrina Erdelys all the way down.

Guest
Zsuzsa
1 year 1 month ago

I was wondering if anyone else was having that same thought.

In both cases, we have a reporter who prints a highly inflammatory (and as it turns out, untrue) story based on an accusation from one side without even attempting to contact the accused for their response. In the case of Rolling Stone, and I would guess but don’t know EW, someone lied to the reporter but ultimately the story was accepted because it confirmed the pre-existing narrative. Ultimately, the only reason to fall for the lie was that the reporter wanted to be fooled.

I have to think these guys are going to regret it, though. The Evil League of Evil is not nearly as nice as the University of Virginia.

Guest
Jared Anjewierden
1 year 1 month ago

Did they learn nothing from GamerGate?

If not for the gamers are dead articles it would have blown over in a few months. Instead it marches on, and the game sites that published the articles are hurting for ad money.

And bad enough (for them) that they pushed their narrative with EASILY demonstrable falsehoods but they did it while poking GGers in the eye that it was all their fault.

I predict several thousand more voters before this is through.

This is going to get ugly.

Thing of it is, I can’t be bothered to care so much anymore. They’ve libeled people I respect, people who have helped me in more ways than they even know.

“Behold, look forth and see the field where I grow my fucks that I might give them unto others.

Lo, it is barren, and I have salted the earth that none more shall come forth henceforth and forever.”

Guest
Pugmak
1 year 1 month ago

Lets keep this in context of the greater whole.

We’re fighting back against a mindset. A mindset responsible for the mutation of our laws that purposely erode to destruction our cherished Constitutional protections. The mindset that plays witchhunt among our privately owned business such as bakeries and pizza parlors sending inquisitors and ambushers to use abusive laws created by corrupt politicians and idiot judges who are owned and operated by the SJW cause. The mindset that causes young adults to be kicked out of college or university for not toeing the line in Constitutionally forbidden PC speak and group-thought. The mindset that has succeeded in criminalizing thought.

This is a fight against a non-metaphorical domestic enemy that many of us are oath bound to stand against in manner and means no different from that of a foreign enemy.

Guest
Scott Anderson
1 year 1 month ago

Thank you for saying it so well.

Guest
zealcub
1 year 1 month ago

For anyone who doesn’t know what the Gamers Are Dead Articles are: http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Gamers_Are_Dead

From what I, and most GamerGaters, have seen over the last few days the people you are opposing are following their normal plan of operations to the letter with this.
You criticized them and have shown the world for whom they are. They will try to drive you out of the industry and will try to ruin your lives.

Guest

[…] just posted a very justifiably angry post about how the media are portraying the Sad Puppies. I’ve been following them off and on for a while, and it’s no secret I disagree with them […]

Guest
Slime
1 year 1 month ago

Having read the “Not Your Shield” post on Hoyt’s blog, I think a fantastic idea would be blog posts highlighting the female/non-caucasian/LGBT people who were on the Sad Puppies slate and got nominated. Perhaps even let them say a little about themselves, perhaps including their political leanings.

Then follow it up with:

1. quotes about how Sad Puppies is just a bunch of white straight men who hate diversity
2. attacks specifically made towards each of these female/non-caucasian/LGBT people because they were on the Sad Puppies slate (bonus points if the attacks claim the person is a different gender, race, and/or sexuality than the person actually is).

Guest
KiTA
1 year 1 month ago

I really suggest you look into GamerGate’s “Gamers are Dead” event.

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Gamers_Are_Dead

The parallels are eerie — a group of journalists (who we would later discover were colluding on a mailing list titled GameJournoPros) posted about 15 opinion pieces at or around the same across otherwise unconnected news outlets, all claiming that “Gamers are Dead” — that gamers were just sexist bigoted jerks mad about diversity.

Well, you now have your own “Scifi Fans are Racist Bigots” event.

It’s been kinda fun watching the reaction to Sad Puppies 3 and GamerGate. These people seem to be playing by the exact same playbook each time, and when just shouting “Sexist, Racist, Homophobe! BECAUSE I SAID SO LA LA LA” doesn’t work, they don’t seem to have any other ideas.

On the plus side, the Gamers are Dead scandal really solidified GamerGate as a movement and made a lot of people sitting on the fence recognize there was a real problem, so with any luck this will make people realize that the Hugo awards have been fixed for years by SJWs, who are just mad now that someone dares argue against the CHORFs.

Guest
Davidisontherun
1 year 1 month ago

The literate don’t need to be your audience. Readers are over.

Guest
flyergrad
1 year 1 month ago

Dear Mr Correia,

You have turned me into an activist! Yesterday, when I saw the EW article on FB, I made a comment that the author of the article was a bald-faced liar and that I wanted to see a retraction with apologies.

The person who commented before me said something about Mr Torgersen’s lawyers; that they would having fun because of the libel in the article.

I wish I has saved a screen shot because the article and comments were deleted (at least from the EW FB mobile feed). I do not even see a story revision there now.

Guest
Kristophr
1 year 1 month ago

Here you go:
https://archive.today/0NH1i

All stupid posted to the internets is forever.

Guest
les ismor
1 year 1 month ago

In my humble opinion, this is all a very good thing. They can’t come to grips with the fact that the authors who were nominated, and their fans, are a very diverse group of people; that will be their eventual downfall.

Don’t get me wrong, the libel and unfounded (and ridiculous) claims are awful; but the fact is anyone can learn the truth simply by doing a little research. If some people don’t want to bother, or ignore inconvenient truths to continue in an attempt to push their own particular agenda, screw ’em. We don’t need those people anyway.

Guest
Demonix
1 year 1 month ago

Hey, the slashdot article just links to the i09 stuff and doesn’t make any assumptions in the topic title. the comments seem to mostly reflect the idea that the SJWs have had something like this coming for a long time.

Guest
Rick67
1 year 1 month ago

I agree. When I saw Larry mention Slashdot I thought, “Oh no, not them”, took a look and… it’s not much more than a rather neutral reference, and the very short post itself is almost pro-SP.

Guest
Eamon J. Cole
1 year 1 month ago

Mr. Correia,

For the small measure of worth it owns, amidst this shitstorm, thanks for shouldering this burden.

It’s good work you do.

Guest
StallChaser
1 year 1 month ago

I can’t help but to see the parallels between this and the “gamers are dead” saga of gamergate. It’s pretty much the same thing, with glorified bloggers circularly referencing themselves about how awful these people are for disagreeing with them. A few observations from having been involved in atheism (with atheism+), gamergate, and having seen the same thing play out multiple times before:

Debate is a spectator sport. Don’t go in expecting to change your opponent’s minds. Your goal is to change the minds of neutral observers. Defend yourself, but don’t respond to attacks with attacks. Let it be self-evident who the aggressors are.

SJW ideology (if you can even call it that) is inherently self-destructive. They will always find some reason to attack someone, whether they’re neutral, or sometimes even on their own side. Never interrupt them when they do this. Just sit back, take some screenshots, archive it, and make some popcorn.

Archival tools are your friend. SJWs rely on attempting to rewrite history and denying everything. They’ll delete everything they can the moment it can be used against them, and claim all screenshots of their activity were faked. Archiving (with sites like archive.today) denies them the ability to memory hole everything. It’s completely outside the grasp of mspaint or whatever other image editor they’ll accuse you of using. Aside from gaining access to the server itself, there’s no way to fake an archive.

Aside from all that, it’s just a matter of time. A lot of gamergate is watching Sad Puppies because it’s a case of SOCJUS losing its stranglehold on a medium. They have the same stranglehold on game journalism, but not the medium itself. They also only have themselves to thank for potentially growing the SF/F fanbase. I’ll probably pick up a few more books myself, even if I don’t have enough personal investment just yet to actually participate in the Hugos.

Guest
holy13
1 year 1 month ago

There are interested parties who make a habit of archiving EVERYTHING.

https://archive.today/g5VaT#selection-1479.0-1479.45

Guest
Ken
1 year 1 month ago

Look at it this way; if everybody who voted for the Sad Puppies slate (that would include moi…) pays their $40 and votes next year, and the NEXT year, we could run the whole show and the SMOFs could take their marbles and skulk away.

You and Brad have done an invaluable service in showing how easily perverted the Hugo process is, and how easy it can be to un-pervert it. This is going to make science fiction FUN again!

As a 50-year fan, I thank you greatly!

Guest
Differently
1 year 1 month ago

If the Hugo awards become solely run by the Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, then that is also a perversion of the Hugos.
The Hugos are an award for all SFF fandom, and Sad Puppies, while quite possibly representing more of fandom, are not all of fandom. The purpose of Sad puppies (as I believe both Larry and Brad have said), is not to replace one set of tastemakers with another. There is plenty of good SFF that is unlikely to make it on the SP slate. The Sad Puppies slate has not included YA novels, to the best of my knowledge, for an example.
Even if Sad Puppies does include YA and other deserving sub-genres on its slate, it still won’t be able to push for all the deserving novels. We need more slates, featuring more novels SFF fandom cares about.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

I can’t speak for anyone but what I suspect will happen is the slates from SP will grow increasingly complex. I think the overall point is they will be asking literary questions and not questions about race and gender predicated on the innate spiritual and moral failings of straight white men. Let’s be honest – anything’s better than empty stories racially and sexually pie-charted into play in tandem with a daffy progressive KKK.

Guest
Ashterah
1 year 1 month ago

This should always have been asking literary questions, and not if someone was the right race/gender etc. That’s what I hope SP has brought about.

Guest
Differently
1 year 1 month ago

And that’s awesome. I do think you and Brad have decent motives, otherwise I wouldn’t bother posting. Lowering the cost of supporting memberships will help, as you pointed out in the other thread.
Currently, there need to be ~6000 nominations to make Sad Puppies irrelevant (as a 5% minimum is needed to make it on the ballot). Let’s see whether we can get that many fans from all SFF fandoms to nominate next year. I think we’d all be happy with just more regular voters coming in. Not everyone has to be a Sad Puppy to have good taste in fiction.

Guest
Mousekt
1 year 1 month ago

It wouldn’t take that many votes, just more organized alternative nominations. It’s quite likely this will create hugo-oriented political parties, with all sorts of different groups putting up different voting slates. Which is just fine with me; the problem doesn’t lie in having organized grouos, it lies in having one group that is more organized than the rest, so that they control the end result.

But there is no way that will happen here. Either SP will totally dominate, and grow more complex and less organized and then fracture or possibly dissolve completely, or more groups will emerge their own books.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Part of the problem here (and on this I kinda agree with the opposition) is that individual categories can be and were gamed into being all one slate, even when everyone totally follows the rules.

A solution proposed elsewhere was to limit nominations to just one or two per category per ballot. Now, seems to me that to be anything like relevant, that needs a whole lot more than 2000 total voters (apparently most of last year’s members can’t be arsed to vote this year — that’s what, 20%?)

So how about the “one vote” supporting membership, where for $10, you get one vote in one category. Cheap and available, but gets expensive fast if you’re into vote-stuffing, and would mitigate the loss of votes from only allowing 1 or 2 per category for regular $40 memberships.

Just throwing out ideas; feel free to throw them back.

TNH has enlisted security expert Bruce Schneier in an attempt to find a better voting scheme; in my long observation (we were in an APA together long before he became famous) Bruce is scrupulously fair; I think we can rely on his advice.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/016199.html

The big problem is that eliminating one way of gaming the vote may make it more vulnerable to another method and possibly worse results. And one should never assume that one’s own faction will always be in power.

“You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered.”
— Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

Guest
SDN
1 year 1 month ago

““You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered.”

And if LBJ had actually practiced any of that, the country would have been far better off.

Guest
Differently
1 year 1 month ago

Recap of what’s being discussed on Making Light in terms of alternate voting practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
This system would reduce the impact from a single slate, as it says that your vote can only count for X works in a category. There doesn’t seem to be a reason Puppies should be against it. Data from Chaos Horizon suggests many Puppies might have only voted half the slate anyway.
We’ve heard the suggestion of increasing spots on the shortlist and lowering the number of nominating slots, which seems to be a less effective variant of Single Transferable voting. Nothing really wrong with it from a Puppy perspective, though fewer nominating slots could be sad (depends on how they do it).
Cumulative voting, where each voter gets a number of points to ‘weight’ their nominations with. It would seem to favor people who are only fans of one thing. It would also make the nominating process more difficult for voters, which doesn’t seem like a good idea.
Longlist, then shortlist. This form adds a round (or more), to the process, making it more difficult for nominators. But it does mean more works get recognized, if only on the longlist.
http://drplokta.livejournal.com/166650.html
Proposal would increase the number of non-slate works in categories where slates are already doing well. Nothing wrong with that, for Puppies. Puppies still get stuff on the ballot, and the nomination process doesn’t get more difficult.
Make the personal information of nominators available after the shortlist announcement – This is the most spectacularly bad idea on here, considering how much harassment happened this year.
Only allowing people who’ve been members for 3 years to nominate – another spectacularly bad idea. It removes the incentive to join and try to get works you like on the shortlist. Very elitist.
Guaranteed percentage – every work that gets a certain percentage of nominating votes ends up on the short list. If anything, I think this would increase the powers of slates, they can get anything they want on the ballot if they know they have X% of the vote. Also, the shortlist would get so large that no one could read all the works.
Sentence justification for nominations, and then making justifications public – This might be hilarious, but it does nothing with regard to the power of slates.
Making number of nominations for works visible during the voting process – This would seem to favor a well organized slate over a Hugo voter who doesn’t obsessively check rankings. Puppies could probably sweep every category if this rule change gets made. Whoever runs Sad Puppies just gives up to the minute data on who to nominate for.
Random ballot – I’m not sure anyone could take the Hugos seriously if it switched to that.
Moderators get to ban groups they think are blocs – basically allows one person to prevent anything from getting on the ballot that they don’t like. Could you hear the Puppies bay?
Class averaging – I’m fairly decent at math, and I have trouble understanding this. It encourages people to blindly follow a slate, because they have trouble figuring out the math themselves. Since SP was started by an accountant, they’d probably be fine.
There are probably more, but it’s a long thread.

Guest
1 year 1 month ago

Dude, you should totally be Hugo Pope. We can cram you into a little Hugomobile, and you can wear a funny Hugo Pope Hat.

Oh! Oh! We need an anti-Hugo Pope to really fuck with people!

Guest
greyratt
1 year 1 month ago

Vox Day ………. ANTI-HUGO POPE

Guest
Ken Mitchell
1 year 1 month ago

The only “power” there is in being a SMOF is the SECRET part. In this case, the “secret” was how few people it takes to invert the whole system and put it back, however momentarily, on an even keel.

The “secret” was that the arcane Hugo rules aren’t actually all that arcane, and a bunch of fans with an extra $40 per year to spare can restore the Hugo to being awarded for GOOD SCIENCE FICTION STORIES.

Let me put it bluntly. I don’t care about the race, sex, sexual preference, or any other personal detail about the author. I want to read interesting stories that involve some science. If it doesn’t include some science, or at least PLAUSIBLE science, then it isn’t “science fiction”. And if the story isn’t a GOOD STORY, then it isn’t good SF.

Further, I don’t much care about the race or gender of the hero/heroine of the story. Or whether they have two sexes or ten, unless it related to the STORY.

If SP has any lasting effect, it will need to be to RETAIN the however many additional people signed up for Sasquan to sign up for the NEXT convention, and the one after that, and after THAT. And to pledge to only vote for GOOD STORIES.

Guest
ChicagoRefugee
1 year 1 month ago

But it’s not too late to vote for Sad Puppies this year!

Nominations are closed, true, but a $40 supporting membership to Sasquan still lets you help decide the winners – and next year’s nominees.

Guest
PavePusher
1 year 1 month ago

Larry, not only that, but apparently Brad owes an apology… for being TOO SUCCESSFUL.

https://www.facebook.com/vanaaron.hughes/posts/647771745322832

Van Aaron Hughes I have no idea what you mean, Robert. LJLW suggested Brad didn’t realize how successful the Puppies would be at dominating the entire ballot. If that wasn’t his intention, then he should be offering a mea culpa and vowing not to do it again. Otherwise, LJLW’s assertion that Brad didn’t realize how well his scheme would work doesn’t mean anything to me.

2 hrs · Like
..

Robert Ries I don’t understand. Why should anyone owe an apology for being more successful that anticipated?

Sad Puppies was/is a movement of two parts.
a. Publicize good writing and offer it up for consideration for awards.
b. A Voter Registration Drive for the Hugo’s.

Being successful at either needs no apologies.

Guest
Faceh
1 year 1 month ago

The Wicked Witch of the West has taken over the Emerald City and is running it from behind the curtain, with her army of screeching, shit-flinging monkeys at her beck and call to go after those who would unseat her.

Now that Larry and others keep pulling back the curtain and exposing the truth of the illusion that is the Hugos, expect the screeching and shit-flinging to get worse.

What do we have to do to get the bucket of water in play?

I mean this seriously, what steps does it take to get these folks to shut up and go away?

Because its great that Larry can stand firm and endure the vitriol but there’s no real end in sight. You can’t expect these people to *change their mind* on this issue. Other people, ones who don’t have the fortitude to put up with a constant attacks will be cowed, and that’s just what these pseudo-fascists (only different from REAL fascists is their lack of actual power) want.

Perhaps we can grow our numbers sufficiently to just drown them out and render them irrelevant.

Guest
Suburbanbanshee
1 year 1 month ago

I don’t even want these folks to shut up and go away. I just want them to start acting like normal, grownup fans who respect other people as people. I would like them to regain sanity and perspective.

We should pray for them. Once somebody gets as frenzied as some of these folks, it must be really difficult to take a deep breath, step back, and mend one’s ways.

Guest
flyergrad
1 year 1 month ago

You know, this campaign against SP3 seemed familiar to me and I remembered when Rush Limbaugh first went on the national airwaves. The same sort of crap was said about him as is being said about Mr Correia dn Mr Torgersen. Then I remember hearing about Saul Alinsky. Here are his “rules”:

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
(for an brief explanation of these rules see http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals

Sound familiar?