Merged 2014 Hugo awards.

[catsmate]

Oops - I didn't realize that the link itself would edited...

Anyway, Wired just put out a long article concerning this "debacle" (at least for the "puppies".) I trust that the censor will allow this one to go thru un-modified...

That's a good article.
The auto-censor will asterisk *anything* even links; it can be annoying.

 

[Retrograde]

Well that's really a matter of opinion [as to"Are the sad puppy entries really undeserving, racist drivel? .] You could try reading some of them.

I have. All the nominated fiction - excerpts in the case of two novels, the complete text of the other three - was made available to voters back in May, along with samples from other categories (and Williamson's complete collection of droppings). Some of the nominees, like "Totaled" and "The Hot Equations" were not bad, but nothing special (and I have a soft spot for "A Single Samurai", even though it got bogged down in cliches). I find Butcher's Dresden series good for listening to when I'm doing chores, since if I miss an important plot point it will be repeated later: enjoyable but they've found their formula. I gave The Dark Between the Stars a try and got 4 chapters in before deciding washing windows was a more productive use of my time: it read like a parody of mediocre juvenile SF from the 50s and 60s. Wright's work starts off pretentious and goes downhill from there: he thinks he's channeling C.S.Lewis, and one of his entries was essentially Return to Narnia. "In the Stone House" was a fragment (and the only thing I remember is that the main characters reminded me of Tonto and the Lone Ranger). I disagreed with other voters in that I thought the Heuvelt, which won in its category, was mediocre and overwritten, and would have been better edited down to short story length.

One of the Puppy complaints is that no one is recognizing good old fashion space opera anymore. Ancillary Sword has an evil galactic emperor - you can't get much more space opera-y than that.

Again, I am highly suspicious when i see such a number surge for one controversial year when the previous year they show a much lower baseline.

There were a lot of people like Mr. Retrograde and me who aren't Worldcon fans (although some of my best friends are) who decided to read the nominees and vote this year because of the puppy nominees. And now I'm looking for short fiction to nominate for next year: the collection Old Venus has some good old-fashioned adventure yarns!

 

[kookbreaker]

That's some fine skeptical thinking right there! Don't address the actual content of the article and the points made, just handwave it away.

(I think I'm going full heretic! )

Recent events with PP and the hitpiece on the BLM leader they decided 'wasn't black' show they lack anything worthwhile.

If you want a quick dersision: Milo & Vox were going to declare victory in any case, and his silly comparison of himself and the puppies to Star Wars Rebels is laughable. I could go on but why should I care about Milo's opinions?

The Society of Professional Journalists event last weekend in which professional journalists, when given examples of gaming press actions, actually agreed that the actions of the gaming press were unethical and violated the SPJ ethical guidelines.

Please don't try to make SPJ-AIrplay to be anything other than the GG wankfest that it was. Only the GG side presented, to a vastly sympathetic audience. Not impressed with these results.

Oh, and the event got multiple bomb threats too, forcing an evacuation. Interestingly, that story didn't make it onto the front pages of most mainstream press outlets nor certain gaming press outlets.

That was the only thing that got interest, actually. The rest was drivel. Sad that it happened - that should happen to nobody. I am curious if that edgelord from 8chan who claimed to send it actually did and if he will ever face consquences.

Getting back to the Hugo awards: The telling moment for me was Larry Correia's 1st reply to George RR Martin. It was a big pile of thinly disguised sore loserdom. All that really needs to be said, really.

But hey, Elf Grinder 3000K agrees with you. You got that going for you!

 

[TeapotCavalry]

(rant)

Please don't try to make SPJ-AIrplay to be anything other than the GG wankfest that it was. Only the GG side presented, to a vastly sympathetic audience.

Because despite reaching out to many prominent detractors, nobody from anti-GG agreed to show up, not only that, they actively tried to stop the event from happening. The trend you start to see here is that people who are against SJW tactics are open for debate and invite it to be had. SJWs fear it, they hide, lie, threaten and manipulate. Why? You guessed it - they have no actual evidence-based arguments.

It's like catsmate said, they choose to not debate it (for reasons described above). To call the GG thread an echo-chamber in a forum where AFAIK none of the mods or admins are partial to GG is just the height of self-delusion. Everyone is welcome there. If you think you have evidence to prove whatever your belief about GG is, come and discuss it.

By now, it should be quite obvious anti-GG sentiments are entirely hollow and misinformed and basically come down to patting each other on the back whenever the myth of GG monster is told to score social brownie points.

The narrative with Sad Puppies seems to run exactly the same line. This entire thread is filled with calling the out-group names from afar without actually engaging with someone who holds that differing viewpoint and trying to examine why they think what they think. It's vilifying and ridiculing The Other. Someone already managed to call Sad Puppies racist. Really? Where's your evidence? Are you perhaps making a generalization fallacy? I've already counted poisoning the well fallacies and some random ad hoc explanations to dismiss any opposing viewpoint, while the in-group cheers on without examining whether their beliefs are in fact grounded in facts.

Not impressed with these results.

We didn't learn anything we already didn't know, the ethical issues were confirmed to be ethical issues by the SPJ panelist. But we already knew that.

(/rant)

 

[fuelair]

Oops - I didn't realize that the link itself would edited...

Anyway, Wired just put out a long article concerning this "debacle" (at least for the "puppies".) I trust that the censor will allow this one to go thru un-modified...

It did and thank you kindly for the data!!!

 

[catsmate]

It did and thank you kindly for the data!!!

It's a really fascinating exposé of Beale's ego and disconnect from reality, and how little support the puppyboys have even from people who share their tastes in sci-fi.
Scalzi's take (Being a Jerk About the Hugos: Not as Effective a Strategy as You Might Think) is also worth reading.

 

[kookbreaker]

(rant)
Because despite reaching out to many prominent detractors, nobody from anti-GG agreed to show up,

Well golly, why would they? First of all this event was not even an official SPJ event whatsoever. It was run by one member of a local chapter and the national org told him to stop using their logo. I'm amazed they let him continue use their name, but that might be something they have in their charter.

So why should anyone be a part of this besides the gamergaters desperate for anything resembling legitimacy? We're at the same level here when Creationists demand Scientists debate them and then get puffed & proud up when they are refused.

 

[catsmate]

Well golly, why would they? First of all this event was not even an official SPJ event whatsoever. It was run by one member of a local chapter and the national org told him to stop using their logo. I'm amazed they let him continue use their name, but that might be something they have in their charter.

So why should anyone be a part of this besides the gamergaters desperate for anything resembling legitimacy? We're at the same level here when Creationists demand Scientists debate them and then get puffed & proud up when they are refused.

Exactly.

 

[epeeist]

I'll start with an example and a question, I read two books by Jose Saramago (Nobel Laureate in Literature) years ago, Blindness and History of the Siege of Lisbon, I'm picking those as examples because the former could be considered science or speculative fiction and the latter alternative history plus romance. The books were interesting, well-written (one would hope, he won the Nobel Prize in Literature and from what I read the translator was skilled), and entertaining/enjoyable to read. But if there were books of similar quality up for a Hugo, would they have a chance to win, or would the protagonists be too mainstream for voters to choose them (or would Saramago have enough left-wing street cred to carry the books...)?

I think the sad puppies do make some valid points, but ultimately the question is what are the Hugos supposed to be awarded for? Good ideas? Good writing? Entertainment value? Social awareness or commentary?

I think that the concern is that the focus has shifted towards awarding those works which have social awareness (I can't think of a better phrase offhand), sometimes with good ideas, at the expense of good writing and entertainment value. I haven't read any of this year's winners (though the Three-Body Problem does sound interesting, especially as a fan of alternate history, so I do plan to read it); and while years ago I saw winning a Hugo or Nebula award as a big deal, now I don't even pay attention except when it makes news as in this year.

 

[carlvs]

Well golly, why would they? First of all this event was not even an official SPJ event whatsoever. It was run by one member of a local chapter and the national org told him to stop using their logo. <snip>

Wait - this "GG whine-fest" did not have the blessing of the SPJ organization? No wonder I couldn't find any mention of it on their site.

Going by the rhetoric over in the He-Man Woman Haters Club GG thread, this was a major event that was going bring their "concerns" to the mainstream...

Of course this would also explain why the most significant "news" site that gave this non-event any coverage was Breitbart.com (talk about unethical journalism..)

 

[Corsair 115]

The Heretical Gadly returns to bring the readers of this thread tales from the other side!

You know, that other side that has been vilified as racist, sexist, and lots of other terrible things by both its opponents and the mainstream media. No, not GamerGate, I mean the Sad Puppies (not to be confused with the Rabid Puppies—similar name, different folks).

Three supporters of the Sad Puppies—Brad Torgersen, Sarah Hoyt, and Kate Paulk—appeared on the Honey Badger Radio podcast on Tuesday night to discuss their observations and reactions to what went down with the Hugo Awards. (Hey, there's two women in that group of three Sad Puppies. Curious for a group that's been demonized as being against women.)

For those who would like to hear directly from some of the involved parties themselves rather than through the sometimes untrustworthy and biased media reporting of them, here's the YouTube page where you can listen to the entire broadcast.

How many naysayers in this thread, I wonder, have the intellectual integrity to actually listen to those three persons speak for themselves...

 

[Corsair 115]

Three supporters of the Sad Puppies—Brad Torgersen, Sarah Hoyt, and Kate Paulk—appeared on the Honey Badger Radio podcast on Tuesday night to discuss their observations and reactions to what went down with the Hugo Awards. (Hey, there's two women in that group of three Sad Puppies. Curious for a group that's been demonized as being against women.)

For those who would like to hear directly from some of the involved parties themselves rather than through the sometimes untrustworthy and biased media reporting of them, here's the YouTube page where you can listen to the entire broadcast.

Well, I'm 35 minutes through this 2-hour podcast and I'm still waiting to hear this alleged sexism and/or racism on the part of these particular Sad Puppies. I challenge anyone else to listen and try and find it.

 

[catsmate]

Well, I'm 35 minutes through this 2-hour podcast and I'm still waiting to hear this alleged sexism and/or racism on the part of these particular Sad Puppies. I challenge anyone else to listen and try and find it.

So you cherrypick one source, a PR spinfest at that, and all the prior examples are wrong?


So Poxy never said women had no right to refuse sex with their husbands? Or shouldn't have access to education? Or be allowed to vote?

 

[catsmate]

I think Darrell Schweitzer put it well.

So now the Puppies are roadkill. I have to admit I predicted this, several times, right here on FB. The reason for their defeat is not, I think, politics at all, but the same reason that the Scientologist effort failed once they got Hubbard’s BLACK GENESIS on the ballot in 1987. This forced people to read it, after which there was no hope of winning. BLACK GENESIS finished sixth in a field of five, lower than No Award, which came in 5th. Sheer awfulness proved its undoing. I think that is what happened to the Puppy slate.

Think of the good works published this year that were edged out of the nominations by the dreck pushed by the puppyboys.

 

[eerok]

So Poxy never said women had no right to refuse sex with their husbands? Or shouldn't have access to education? Or be allowed to vote?

Beale wasn't a Sad Puppy, he was a Rabid Puppy. I've been reading some Sad Puppy blogs, and although they're enormous whiners even from day one, they're just ordinary conservatives who can't imagine that it's fair for people to have tastes and values other than theirs.

To the question "What are the Hugos for?", the answer is "Whatever the voters want it to be." Things like this can change focus by era, and this appears to be an era of renewed social consciousness. This has been an important consideration in the awards for many decades, in any case.

Popular and commercially successful SFF doesn't need a Hugo to be noticed, because obviously they're already noticed. If the Sad Puppies think that their kind of SFF needs more recognition than they're offered by the (biased) Hugos, they should start their own award.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Well golly, why would they?

You're right, how silly of me. Why challenge your beliefs. Debates are completely useless and an antithesis to rational and skeptical thinking.
This question. I'm not sure if you yourself realize how it sounds, but it's just more confirmation there is no desire from the anti-GG to have a dialog.

This was the opportunity to put up or shut up. We see which one they chose.

We're at the same level here when Creationists demand Scientists debate them and then get puffed & proud up when they are refused.

The analogy is apt, but in reverse. GG Hitchens and Dawkins are saying bring it on, debate us if you have anything. All we hear is crickets and mumbling that the antis have nothing to prove to anyone. It's easy to shout lies and then promptly block the criticism on twitter, but a bit harder when you have to actually listen to the other side give their rebuttal. It's like James Randi's million dollar challenge. There has been numerous open invitations to a live debate, with pro-GG people proposing to donate money to charity if anyone agrees to the debate. None have taken, giving embarrassing excuses. "My spoons don't bend when there are skeptics around".

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I left after a new participant proudly listed an absolutely pathetic list of GG accomplishments.

Disclosures of conflicts of interests, renewed ethics policies in numerous gaming journals and tens of thousands of dollar donated to various charities.

I see how you would consider this pathetic. Really abysmal.

ETA: Sorry for the derail, everyone. I just can't let claims that I know are BS be left unchallenged. If you have interest in figuring out who's right here, let's continue it in the GG thread. I'll stop any GG related discussions here.

 

[kookbreaker]

You're right, how silly of me. Why challenge your beliefs. Debates are completely useless and an antithesis to rational and skeptical thinking.

Airplay was not a debate. It was an attempt to get anything resembling legitimacy for GG. I'm sure you disagree but it hardly matters, airplay didn't get any notice beyond the the bomb threats (which, in case it needs saying, were reprehensible).

The analogy is apt, but in reverse. GG Hitchens and Dawkins are saying bring it on, debate us if you have anything.

Wrong. Dawkins specifically suggests not debating creationists, just as Gould suggested. His statement: "they’ve won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability....They may not win the argument – in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had."

Same to be said about Gamergate.

 

[fuelair]

Wait - this "GG whine-fest" did not have the blessing of the SPJ organization? No wonder I couldn't find any mention of it on their site.

Going by the rhetoric over in the He-Man Woman Haters Club GG thread, this was a major event that was going bring their "concerns" to the mainstream...

Of course this would also explain why the most significant "news" site that gave this non-event any coverage was Breitbart.com (talk about unethical journalism..)

I see you are a Little Rascals fan!!!

 

[Corsair 115]

So, have those dedicated Sad Puppies naysayers listened yet to the podcast ? Have you taken the time to actually listen to what Brad, Sarah, and Kate have to say for themselves rather than what others have claimed they have said? Have you listened to it and found examples of them being sexist or racist?


The Heretical Gadly offers another slice of thoughts from the other side, the one that some in this thread appear so righteously certain doesn't deserve to be heard.

Politics in Print: Why You Should Care About The 2015 Hugo Awards.

ETA: Sorry for the derail, everyone. I just can't let claims that I know are BS be left unchallenged. If you have interest in figuring out who's right here, let's continue it in the GG thread. I'll stop any GG related discussions here.

Do not apologize, TC. What you stated is precisely why I mentioned it. The constant misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies by some grows increasingly tiresome. Especially when it comes from those who can't even be bothered to participate in the discussion, who refuse to even look at valid evidence, yet claim to hold the oh-so-noble morally superior high ground. My patience for such shenanigans is at an end.

Moreover, note also that GG was itself raised in this thread as a result of a citation given by catsmate. See post #133 for more. Since it was raised in a citation given in support of the central topic of this thread, it makes it a legitimate secondary topic to be discussed since the citation linked the two. It's also legitimate for discussion due to the similar (and often dishonest) treatments both the Sad Puppies and GamerGate have received from their opposition and in mainstream media accounts.

Such treatment, incidentally, is being visibly displayed here in this very thread.