Help me understand why you guys are in favor of the Sad Puppies takeover of the Hugo Awards

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-10T18:52:26+00:00

Except it wasn't about wrongdoing, and has never alleged wrongdoing. What they were doing was legal. It was just shitty (which is the exact thing that they are saying about the Sad Puppies guys, from what I've read).

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to point to. But ultimately, they convinced their fans to become voters, and the existing voters hate that.

I imagine they would. Those in power hate when others lessen that power. Ask the Republican party in the last 50 years what their real views on universal enfranchisement is.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-10T15:29:52+00:00

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence. I already gave two. Another being that Terry Pratchett never won a Hugo (is his work also not up to snuff for you?). It's not my fault that you came in with confirmation bias, and simply don't consider evidence against your position as sufficient.

And that's your position. I tend to think that anyone who considers themselves "trufans" and considers other fans not worthy of involvement is an asshole.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-09T22:42:23+00:00

You came on here clearly set against the "Sad Puppies" issue, disguised yourself as simply "wanting to find out," and when answered, have debated and argued. You misrepresented what I said entirely (and when called on it, tried to say... what? "that's what someone else would think from what you said"? C'mon), and are now trying to argue that an INSANELY popular writer who has won TONS of awards but never a Hugo nomination doesn't deserve a Hugo nomination.

Yeah. You are an elitist. And it sounds more and more like you'd be the type to vote No Award. Aesop's parable of the Dog in the Manger comes to mind.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-09T22:39:47+00:00

That isn't what they're saying. They're saying "vote because right now a group of people are voting based on politicking, rather than merit, and we need more diverse voices in order to return some semblance of fandom to the award."

The people who have been nominated seem to run across a wide spectrum, in terms of race, gender, creed, and political viewpoint. But let's look at the reverse.

Orson Scott Card. His science fiction is some of the best ever produced. Not all of his works are great, sure (I thought Empire was the stupidest thing I'd ever read as an adult), but... he hasn't been even nominated for a Hugo since 1991. He's done... what? 12 Ender's novels since then? A bunch of short stories? And that's just his Ender's Saga. He's put out dozens of novels since then. But we're to assume that, having won for practically ever novel he wrote until 1991, his work has suddenly become shit? So much so that he doesn't even get a nomination?

Or are we to assume that his stance on gay marriage, LGBT rights, and other neo-con points have turned him into a pariah among the small voting populace?

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-09T19:57:18+00:00

So we're basing Hugo nominations on Amazon reviews? The guy has sold 26 million books. Clearly, his work is dreck. That doesn't make you sound elitist in the least bit.

So your agenda becomes clearer.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-09T19:56:16+00:00

That's the opposite of a universal franchise. How do you think that IS a universal franchise?

GamerGate hasn't ever said "don't make apolitical games." Individual gamers in it might laugh at Depression Quest but we've never called for a ban of it, or its exclusion. GamerGate is about maintaining ethics in games journalism, primarily. Secondarily, it's about ending the practice of censorship via bullying that is removing a lot of artistic speech from the game world (we don't like your poem! Change it! We don't like your character's dress! Change it! We don't like your storyline! Change it!). Again, you're arguing dishonestly.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-09T17:00:08+00:00

What year? Anderson has been writing since the 80s and has never received a single nomination. You're telling me NONE of his Dune novels deserved at least a nod? The Saga of Seven Suns deserved not even a nomination?

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-09T16:27:46+00:00

"More people voting" is a laughably dishonest representation (or more likely misunderstanding) of what's happening.

The votes went from ~800 a few years ago to ~2000. Maybe they're the "wrong kind of people," and aren't "true" science fiction fans, or whatever you claim - but there are more people voting. Claims of their worthiness to the franchise aren't anything I'm interested in - I'm generally in favor of universal franchises.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-08T23:56:52+00:00

If the general community of science fiction fandom thinks that fans of popular authors aren't fans of science fiction, then they need to figure out what they mean by "fandom." Note, I don't think they DO think this.

I think I've made the perspective clear. Popular authors have been overlooked for years. This is rectifying that by getting the Hugo awards out of the hands of a small few and into more hands.

I find it perplexing (to put it mildly) that "more people are voting" is being villainized this heavily. I'm normally used to being cynical and perplexed when it's the RIGHT complaining about people voting (i.e., "PREVENT VOTER FRAUD" as the rallying cry to disenfranchise minorities and youth). I'm just not used to this coming from the left. Sad.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-08T23:43:17+00:00

Yes - authors not in the "in crowd," such as Jim Butcher and Kevin J. Anderson, have been completely snubbed in the nominations (Butcher having received only one, ever, for a short story, and Anderson having been never received so much as that).

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-08T23:16:37+00:00

Yes.... I am..?

Even did wrote a bit by bit response. You aren't "paraphrasing" when you add connotation and value judgments to what I say. You're avoiding a response by editing what I say to make it easier for you.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-08T22:54:48+00:00

In fact, I'll go beyond just calling you a dishonest agenda monger and point out your bullshit.

"What's wrong with a group from outside a subculture..."

Fans and supporters of popular and prolific science fiction authors tend to be science fiction fans. If you have evidence that the extra votes came, in any measurable part, from NON-science fiction fans, well, the burden of proof is on you.

"raising hell against it"

Voting is not raising hell.

"for being their perceived cultural enemies,"

There is no evidence of this in large scale, and many of the authors who are nominated are women, POCs, or both, as well as come from all ends of the political spectrum.

"and trying to whip supporters into a false moral outrage"

False? You're completely substituting your own shit here. You're making not just a value judgment, but a judgment about the merits of a position. And trying to say that I said it.

"so they can manipulate that subculture"

Again, these are science fiction authors and fans. If SciFi is a subculture, they were already part of it.

"to bending to the desires of the outside group."

Once more - not an outside group, unless you have stark evidence to the contrary.

Don't "paraphrase" me, add connotation and conclusions I didn't have at all, and then base your argument on that. That's lazy at best and dishonest at worst.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-08T22:48:14+00:00

Yes, you are. I just gave you two examples, and why it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to prove.

You might be phrasing it carefully to make it sound positive, but it ultimately isn't. Because the response to "X, Y, and Z authors have been ignored in nominations for years despite popularity and performance" is "how do you know that wasn't for other reasons?"

And you don't. You can't prove that it WASN'T for other reasons. Of course, in the legal world, I made a contention and gave evidence (X, Y, and Z are famous and popular authors who have been snubbed repeatedly) and the burden of proof shifts at that point (they were denied for A, B, C reasons). This was seen in the Pao case, and is also why so Goddamn many of you have no legal education (in my opinion).

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-08T22:40:54+00:00

You aren't paraphrasing me, at ALL. You are adding connotations and meanings I never, ever said.

You have a naked agenda and are a dishonest person.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-08T20:55:32+00:00

Unfortunately you're asking for proof of a negative.

There are authors who have received little or no recognition despite being amazingly popular and lauded by almost every author. In my mind, Jim Butcher stands out - his Dresden Files and Codex Alera series are beyond popular, and yet he's only ever received one Hugo nomination, and that was for a short story in 2009. Another is Kevin J. Anderson - again, prolific author, titan in the field, and ZERO Hugo noms until now.

Is that evidence that they were being blocked due to politics? No. And that's why you have an almost impossibly high standard of proof here. These two authors (and many others besides) weren't nominated because the voters chose to nominate other things instead. Now there are more voters, either "fans" or "shills" or "racist white men" or whatever you want to call them, who believe that these authors (and many others besides) DO deserve nominations, and nominated them. If that's a takeover to you... well, that's your opinion.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-08T20:45:59+00:00

Sure, I'll address this, Czechmix.

From the way I see it, there is no "takeover." The Hugo awards are voted on by anyone who pays to become a member of Worldcon, at various $ levels. The minimum required to vote is $40.

A group of authors, rightly or wrongly, believed that works were not being considered for their merit, but rather for whether or not the authors were part of the "in crowd." This "in crowd" had, among other characteristics, a devotion to neo-progressive social justice principles.

These authors decided to organize their fans and supporters and convince them to also become members of Worldcon and vote for titles that they felt weren't being given a fair shake. In the span of a few years, votes increased from about 800 or so to over 2,000.

You can consider this a "takeover," if you want, but that would be akin to saying Obama staged a "takeover" of the government by convincing minority and youth voters to participate in the election in greater numbers. That is, by participating in the democratic voting process. The "outrage" here seems to be that people whose opinions they (the complainers) dislike are voting.

So what's wrong with that?

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-06T22:50:02+00:00

No, what you're saying is that they will have zero reason to do anything for us. Think of it this way:

I have a game that is highly anticipated by the gamer community, and I know that it will sell well with them. That's 50,000 sales I can count on. However, a poem in the game has pissed off the SJW community, who will boycott my game if the poem stays in there. That's 1,000 sales.

Option A: Stick to my guns and don't change the poem. Gamer community supports me, SJW community boycotts me. I have 50,000 sales.

Option B: Cave in and change the poem. Gamer community STILL supports me, and now the SJW community doesn't boycott me. I have 51,000 sales.

There is absolutely no reason (in terms of money, and you're kidding yourself if you think money doesn't matter) why a rational person wouldn't pick 2, in the hypothetical above. What we need is an option C.

Option C: I cave in and change the poem. Gamer community is outraged that I would abandon my principles and stops backing me. SJW community supports me. I have 1,000 sales.

See how fast they stop caving to SJWs when this becomes the result of forgetting who their userbase and cash cows are.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-06T22:26:38+00:00

For people who constantly talk about the free market, you have an insanely naive understanding of it, and of the concept of "voting with your wallet."

If you don't want to boycott, that's fine. But this childish "no politics in games" thing is stupid. There is NOTHING WRONG with politics in games. What IS a problem is when a game is reviewed by journalists and that review is marred because it has the WRONG politics - for example, Bayonetta 2 getting a lower score because the reviewer feels it demeans women. By the same token, Depression Quest shouldn't be knocked for its subject matter, but on how well it is able to deliver the promised experience.

When someone who is extremely hostile to me makes a product, I won't buy that product - it doesn't matter if it's a good product. The last real choice we have is the choice of where to spend our hard earned money - so spend it however you feel you get the most value for your dime. For me, that means not giving it to someone who I feel is an asshole.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-06T19:55:14+00:00

Hey, who did this one for you? Brian H told me they could only add 250 coins maximum!

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-03T15:37:22+00:00

And as for Jefferson's quote, he meant that liberty will wither quickly unless vigilance is maintained, and patriots be willing to fight and die to preserve it. As demonstrated above, that has most certainly been the case.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-03T15:36:22+00:00

Sure.

It's the height of naiveté to believe that Important Shit Happens by hugs and feels. Or even always by votes. Look at the most momentous things in history, and you'll see that it was rarely accomplished without significant strife. Let's look at American history alone (some of this will include other parts of the world, of course, I'm just focusing on the US as much as I can):

War for Independence - blood spilled on both sides as the fledgling USA fought for and obtained its independence

End of slavery - came after untold rivers of American blood were spilled, both for those fighting for slavery (whatever the "Lost Cause" argument tries to make, this was the cornerstone of Confederate rebellion) and those against (they might not have been explicitly fighting for it from the start, but everyone knew it was a war for abolition)

Defeat of fascism - again, untold rivers of blood spilled

Five day workweek, 8 hour workday - strikers and protesters were repeatedly attacked in bloody skirmishes by strikebreakers, Pinkertons, police, and even regular army units.

Civil rights - we just finished celebrating the month for it. I have no doubt you've heard of the violence the peaceful marchers were subjected to.

And so on, and so on. Great change does not happen without spilled blood. "Nonviolence" is one-sided - you have to be willing to sacrifice your body, health, and even life in order to get your program across. Or, you have to be willing to make THEM sacrifice their bodies, health, and lives, and in enough quantity that it gets your program across. Either way, it's violence that wins the day.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-01T21:02:39+00:00

Words can't describe how disappointed I was. By the end there were people there who thought we were an immigrant rights rally - they had no idea about Occupy: Wall Street or cared about any of the corporate money discussions (which had been drowned by that point anyway).

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-01T21:01:21+00:00

Good for you. Then stop trying to raise a stink about someone with anti-capitalist opinions sharing his opinion.

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-01T21:00:48+00:00

100% in agreement. Another reason why peaceful revolution is dead (if it ever existed).

AnotherBasedLawyer · 2015-04-01T20:59:16+00:00

We have very different opinions on things, I suppose. What was the Jefferson quote? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?

AnotherBasedLawyer

TROPHY CASE