Domain Query: A VFM's response, Pt. 2
|Now that's my kind of crazy cat lady|
What Is Seen, and What Is Not Seen
- The Sad Puppies are an extreme right-wing group;
- The Rabid Puppies are neo-Nazis;
- Both groups are full of RSHDs (racist sexist homophobic dipsh*ts, to quote the Chief Gamma Rabbit);
- We Puppies, regardless of whether we're of the Sad or Rabid variety, are "a noisy few" and by implication not worth bothering about;
- Yet somehow we've also managed to gather a bunch of Gamergate folks around us to get "a slate of bad-to-reprehensible works" nominated for Hugo Awards
What has become equally obvious, to anyone willing to look at the situation objectively, is that a third of a century later the situation has become transformed. Today, there are is only one author left who can regularly maintain the bridge between popular appeal and critical acclaim. That author is Neil Gaiman. And there are no more than a handful of others who can manage it on occasion. Perhaps the most prominent in that small group are Lois McMaster Bujold, Ursula LeGuin and George R.R. Martin.
Once you get beyond that very small number of authors, the field diverges rapidly. That handful aside, there is no longer any great overlap between those fantasy and science fiction authors whom the mass audience considers the field’s most important writers—judging by sales, at any rate—and those who are acclaimed by the small groups of people who hand out awards.
Both of the major awards, the Hugo and the Nebula, are simple popularity contests with absolutely no requirement—or even expectation, any longer—that the voters will have read all or even most of the nominees. In the old days, that wasn’t much of a problem because you could expect that most voters were at least reasonably familiar with the authors and works under consideration. But today that’s not true at all. People routinely vote for “best novel” or “best short story” when all they’ve read is one or two of the nominees, and in many cases, have never read anything by many of the other authors nominated—not to mention being completely ignorant of other authors who never got nominated in the first place.
Let's see -- if we apply that to people who are Puppy leaders -- the ELoE, as they describe themselves (facetiously, obviously) --
Mr. Correia -- I lack enough evidence at the moment to say, but could go digging.
Mr. Torgerson -- at least 1 out of three, and I would be utterly unsurprised by 2 or 3 out of three. Indeed, since he has argued that most of the recent winners of the Hugos were "affirmative action" votes, implying they couldn't have won on their own merits, this could easily bring us to 3 of 3.
Mr. Beale -- 3 of 3.
Mr. Wright -- 3 of 3
Mr. Kratman -- at least 2 of 3
By the standards of evidence established by Mr. "SJWs always lie" Beale, and Mr. "affirmative action Hugos" Torgerson, that statement certainly holds up.
Homophobia is the moral judgement that homosexual behavior (most of the arguments in this essay refer specifically to male homosexual behavior) is wrong. Homophobia is not like ethnic, racial or religious prejudice, which deny the intrinsic moral rights and value of other people. Rather, it is a moral judgement upon acts engaged in by choice.
If anyone should be offended by what he has to say about race and ethnicity, it should be one of the "little brown brothers" that liberals claim to love so much. I am one of those "little brown brothers", and I'm not bothered in the least by what he says.
The absolute worst you could say about Vox Day, upon fair examination of his record- and I have been reading what he writes for the better part of a decade- is that he pisses people off.
About the absolute worst you can say about him is that he argues that racial differences exist and are real; that racial subgroups have inherent genetic differences; and that human beings generally prefer homogeneity to heterogeneity.
What, exactly, is racist or sexist about any of that?
Fascism and Socialism and All Manner of Horrid Things!
Tom Kratman: "It is never wrong to kill a socialist when socialism gets close to the levers of power; it is always an act of legitimate self defense."
Socialism is a horrible enough ideology to begin with- it makes absolutely no sense on any logical or empirical grounds- but when it gets a hold of the levers of power, it quickly proceeds to kill anyone it needs to in order to consolidate that power.
If you dig around further you will find him vigorously defending Italian Fascism.
My "vigorous defense of Italian fascism" was to point out that, while communism, as with all forms of leftism, believes in the mutability of man and the primacy of what they allege to be reason, fascism, as near as I can tell, is based on the presumption that man is primarily an emotional creature, not a reasoning one, and that all the symbols, the parades, the music, etc., is an attempt to harness that emotional nature to increase harmony, productivity, and security.
Distraction, Disruption, Diversion
The complaint has been levied not only at people posting so-called "fake" reviews (indeed, the person most often blamed for that specifically said "read the works, and then, if you feel like it, review them.) but people posting honest reviews that are simply bad.
Indeed, it does not seem to have occurred to people that forcing them (by saying, in effect, to honorably vote for the Hugos, you have) to read works, they should expect that they won't get the same level of "Oooh, wow!" praise from people who picked up the work coming from other people who liked it.
I won't pretend that reviews don't matter. They do, which is why I always encourage those who have read the book, and liked it, to take the time to post reviews on Amazon. But I'm not sure that the fake ones don't help more than they harm, because a cluster of one-star reviews not only increase the overall number of reviews, but indicate that the author is, at the very least, capable of inspiring genuine passion.
-- "Of Pharyngulans and Fake Reviews", August 15, 2013
I've reported it for abuse and inappropriate content as a fake review from someone who is not a verified purchase and has not read the book, and I encourage you to do the same. Please be aware, prospective fake reviewers, if you lie about us, we will not hesitate to tell the truth about you.
I am also encouraging Amazon to consider cancelling the accounts of reviewers who post fake reviews. Retroactively. It's an area they are looking into because their review system is very important to them, so keep that in mind when you are tempted to post a fake review. Note that Ms Thomases appears to be responding to this call by Glenn Hauman to post fake reviews of Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies works and thereby lower their average ratings.
-- "John C. Wright work disqualified", April 14, 2015
An Unapologetic Apology
She did apologize for painting with too broad a brush. Since her statement is true in reference to many of the leaders of the Puppy movement, there's no need to apologize beyond that.
Customer Service 101
And here we're back. While I know that authors are not the same as employees, they are often the *more* public face of the company. So, for example, should Tor drop John C. Wright, as he has certainly managed to piss off many people who buy Tor's product?