• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 2014 Hugo awards.

carlvs said:
That Beale is a real piece of work. According to this article that appeared on io9, he has already trashed Neal Stephenson's well-reviewed novel, Seveneves, stating:



I question if he really read the book, as (and I most definitely have to use the "spoiler" tag here:)

The female president that appeared in the story is somewhat of a villain. First, she violated protocol by flying up to the evacuation fleet at the last minute (all the other world leaders had agreed to "go down with the planet.") Then when up there, she spreads enough dissent to trigger a significant mutiny among the fleet. The deaths resulting from that event was one of the reasons that at one point it appeared that the human race had been reduced to the "seven eves."

In fact, it was likely that the ONLY reason she was not thrown out of an airlock was that one of the other "eves" was beyond child-bearing age, and the others realized that they needed as many separate genetic lines as possible (if you are anti-GMO, or against human genetic manipulation, this is not the novel for you.:D)
Click to expand...

Female politicians?! When would that ever happen!
 
I think the most sexist scifi I've ever read (not that I've read all that much) was Asimov's Foundation trilogy. Maybe it was normal for the early 50s, but it still came as surprising.
 
cornsail said:
I think the most sexist scifi I've ever read (not that I've read all that much) was Asimov's Foundation trilogy. Maybe it was normal for the early 50s, but it still came as surprising.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I think it was normal for the early 50's - look at this film about the house of the future, and note the blind assumption of the existence of a housewife doing the chores for her man, and not doing anything like a paying job:



If you want really 1-dimensional characters, may I recommend "Biggles". This spoof gives an accurate flavour of the writing.
 
I think the most sexist scifi I've ever read (not that I've read all that much) was Asimov's Foundation trilogy. Maybe it was normal for the early 50s, but it still came as surprising.
Click to expand...

At the large state university I attended in the early 1970s the recently built(less than 20 years previously) engineering building did not have restroom facilities for female students. (One of the male faculty facilities was eventually set aside for our use.) Employment ads were allowed to specify whether males or females were wanted at least through the 1960s. Yeah, it was a very different time and I'm glad it's gone.
 
Retrograde said:
At the large state university I attended in the early 1970s the recently built(less than 20 years previously) engineering building did not have restroom facilities for female students. (One of the male faculty facilities was eventually set aside for our use.) Employment ads were allowed to specify whether males or females were wanted at least through the 1960s. Yeah, it was a very different time and I'm glad it's gone.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Donal said:
And their premise that SciFi has no history of social commentary is a pathetic joke. They are sadder than the losers of Gamergate.
Click to expand...

Given that H.G. Wells novels are FULL of social commentary this just shows that the Sad Puppies are pretty ignorant of the history of Science Fiction.
 
Corsair 115 said:
From Cathy Young, posted on Rear Clear Politics: Mutiny at the Hugo Awards.

(The $64,000 question: Will it be ignored like everything that dares challenge the anti-SP narrative? Or will some exercise a little critical thinking and skepticism and realize there just might be more than one side to the story?)
Click to expand...

You know, becoming a professional Contrarian/Heretic,and automatically supporting the "Contrary/Against the Majority " opinion is not exactly shining example of critical thinking either.

As for me I could not be happier that the Puppies little stunt blew up in their faces.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Apologies if this has been posted already: The Night Science Fiction's Biggest Awards Burned by Robert Marks, posted at The Escapist web site.
Click to expand...

Robert Marks said:
Of everybody involved in the voting, the Sad Puppies did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

What a crock. Canvassing for a politically-motivated slate in order to upset the Hugos is very clearly wrong.

Robert Marks said:
By the end of May, there was a proposal to change the Hugo voting rules to prevent slate voting from ever filing a ballot again.
Click to expand...

Good idea. It'll help quell the ninnies.
 
Fresh off the presses: Sad Puppies 4 is announced. Run, incidentally, by three women: Kate Paulk, Sarah Hoyt, and Amanda S. Green. It'll be interesting to see what the tone of the criticism will be this time around...


eerok said:
What a crock. Canvassing for a politically-motivated slate in order to upset the Hugos is very clearly wrong.
Click to expand...


But canvassing for a politically-motivated anti-SP slate and encouraging a 'no award' vote isn't clearly wrong? Seems... hypocritical. (Also, no comment on the false claims and demonization made of the SP folks? Okey dokey. Good to see that crap thrown is only crap when thrown against one group. But then, I'm familiar with that being a thing.)
 
Corsair 115 said:
Fresh off the presses: Sad Puppies 4 is announced. Run, incidentally, by three women: Kate Paulk, Sarah Hoyt, and Amanda S. Green. It'll be interesting to see what the tone of the criticism will be this time around...
Click to expand...
How about we wait and see what they nominate and why?

If it's the same mediocre crap written by their ideological fellow travellers they'll get the same response I expect.

Corsair 115 said:
But canvassing for a politically-motivated anti-SP slate and encouraging a 'no award' vote isn't clearly wrong? Seems... hypocritical. (Also, no comment on the false claims and demonization made of the SP folks? Okey dokey. Good to see that crap thrown is only crap when thrown against one group. But then, I'm familiar with that being a thing.)
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow. So this is what living in an echo chamber does to your powers of reason.
:rolleyes:
 
Corsair 115 said:
But canvassing for a politically-motivated anti-SP slate and encouraging a 'no award' vote isn't clearly wrong?
Click to expand...

Show your work. Reacting against the Puppies attempt to usurp the Hugos is nothing like what you're trying to describe. You'd need to show that the Hugos were explicitly politicized in an organized way by the "libs" (or whomever) if you want to justify the actions of the Puppies. Otherwise the Puppies organized against SFF fans who merely had tastes other than theirs, and ruined the natural consequences of popularity that's been guiding the Hugos so far.

Politicizing the Hugos is ignorant and wrong. The Puppies deserved what they got, and if they want to continue their war with fans, this only shows how stupid they are.

Corsair 115 said:
Seems... hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Your rhetoric seems... bloviational.

Corsair 115 said:
(Also, no comment on the false claims and demonization made of the SP folks? Okey dokey. Good to see that crap thrown is only crap when thrown against one group. But then, I'm familiar with that being a thing.)
Click to expand...

Why would I need to comment on that? If you look upthread, you'll notice that I encouraged people to learn about Sad Puppies 3 by reading Torgersen's blog first hand.

Anyway it seems lame to cry victim in this case. The Puppies collectively include the Rabid Puppies. Any flak the Sad Puppies got over their association with Beale doesn't mitigate the wrongs they committed under their own power, so the issue is hardly relevant in any case.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Fresh off the presses: Sad Puppies 4 is announced. Run, incidentally, by three women: Kate Paulk, Sarah Hoyt, and Amanda S. Green. It'll be interesting to see what the tone of the criticism will be this time around...
Click to expand...
Whoopee, the Sad/Rabid Puppies managed to find some women to agree with them, specifically chosen just to give it an air of legitimacy. It's still a petty "cause", and I suspect that they're not actually running the show as much as being Sad Puppets.

But canvassing for a politically-motivated anti-SP slate and encouraging a 'no award' vote isn't clearly wrong? Seems... hypocritical.
Click to expand...

As someone else said: Wow. Just wow. You really, really, really don't get it, do you? Look, the SCs made a political statement by cheating. OK, technically they exploited a loophole, but instead of being oh-so-PC, let's call it for what it was: Cheating. A cheating trick that threatened to ruin the whole award. And everyone else didn't like that, so they did the only right thing: They punished the cheaters by not awarding them for the cheating that they did. In any normal world, this is a perfectly acceptable reaction to cheating, and as such, it doesn't even need any other motivation.

And for some inexplicable reason, you're still somehow more upset that people punished the cheaters because they were cheating, than with the cheaters themselves. Why is that? Why are you on the side of cheaters? Do you really think cheating is a good way to get what you want?
 
Corsair 115 said:
Fresh off the presses: Sad Puppies 4 is announced. Run, incidentally, by three women: Kate Paulk, Sarah Hoyt, and Amanda S. Green. It'll be interesting to see what the tone of the criticism will be this time around...
Click to expand...

What difference does their gender make? If their goal is to usurp the Hugos, they're idiots. If they let the grandstanding jerkwad Beale associate with them, then I imagine the criticism will be somewhat like it was last time.
 
Hawk one said:
As someone else said: Wow. Just wow. You really, really, really don't get it, do you? Look, the SCs made a political statement by cheating. OK, technically they exploited a loophole, but instead of being oh-so-PC, let's call it for what it was: Cheating. A cheating trick that threatened to ruin the whole award. And everyone else didn't like that, so they did the only right thing: They punished the cheaters by not awarding them for the cheating that they did. In any normal world, this is a perfectly acceptable reaction to cheating, and as such, it doesn't even need any other motivation.

And for some inexplicable reason, you're still somehow more upset that people punished the cheaters because they were cheating, than with the cheaters themselves. Why is that? Why are you on the side of cheaters? Do you really think cheating is a good way to get what you want?
Click to expand...

I love how the SP narrative seems to constantly evoke the reaction to their gaming the system as some kind of Cabal that is pulling strings, applying pressure, and using astroturf tactics to foil the noble Sad Puppies.

The reality? A lot of science fiction fans from all walks of life took one look at a small group that was hijacking the awards and said that this will not stand.

I also note that these articles constantly try to downplay any relations between the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies, and yet fail to mention the complete lack of ground gaining the SP had until they enlisted the aid of the RP.
 
Corsair 115 said:
But canvassing for a politically-motivated anti-SP slate and encouraging a 'no award' vote isn't clearly wrong? Seems... hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Again, how does one tell the difference between "no award" being due to canvassing and political motivation vs merely being a display of displeasure at the slate-voting the Puppies did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom