Slashdot Mirror
Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political
An anonymous reader writes Last year, the Hugo Awards went to mostly minorities and women. In response, a fan group decided to fight back against what they saw as a liberal attack on their medium. It appears that they have succeeded, as the 2015 nominees are predominantly chosen by a group called "Sad Puppies. Now a counter-counter group is trying to ensure that no one wins any Hugo awards in any category except Best Novel.
You don't mention that Stop And Frisk was invented in a deep Blue city and that Hilliary Clinton pays her women staffers even less than 75%
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Have you seen the numerous reviewers and authors who have stated that they will not read any Sad Puppies related work because it is was part of the slate? They have already come to the conclusion that anything Sad Puppies related is not worthy of winning a Hugo. Some have said they will read the Sad Puppies works but regardless of merit will rank them below No Award because of politics.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
SJW of all stripes have one thing in common: a relentless drive for conformist groupthink on the issues they fight for.
I would say it's not so much groupthink, rather it's that once you define yourself as a social justice warrior, your very identity is threatened unless you are crusading against a social injustice. Thus many will crusade against an imagined injustice, or a former injustice that is resolved or very nearly resolved, rather than search for less glamorous injustices or accept that they might have achieved victory.
Systemic biases do exist, of course, but more and more they are so minor that it's difficult to find a response that isn't disproportionate.
Heck you don't have to give Baen your money. For a very long time they have run their free library with quite a few books available in multiple eReader formats. For a long time Baen held out against Amazon and Barnes & Noble by only selling eBooks through their site in order to keep the cost to readers down.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
How about the actual Hugo short story winner, "The Water That Falls on You from Nowhere"? John Chu may be a talented writer, but that story was NOT a science fiction story. It was a cliched story about a guy bringing home a partner that his family didn't approve of, with a silly "you get wet when you lie" bit tossed in at the beginning to somehow qualify it for the Hugo with a mild fantasy element.
It was another "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" plot retread, only this time the "Who" was gay. So what? It was still a story we've all heard or seen a hundred times in the past 30 years - just substitute your race / religion / ethnicity of choice. What makes this one memorable, besides the sexuality of the main characters?
I cannot believe there wasn't a better science fiction short story published in 2013 than Chu's story. It's not the genre that's floundering, it's what the people who are running the Hugo consider to be "worthy" that has plummeted.
Here's an interesting definition http://leiterreports.typepad.c...
Functionally defined, "SJW" designates someone who monitors cyberspace for slights or miscues that reveal bias, and then exploits the various tools of social media to shame the offender, express outrage, and summon the digital mob, whilst achieving for themselves a righteous fame that ties their identities and their actions to the heroes and achievements of the civil rights movement, the landmark moments of which preceded their adulthood. SJWs divide the world, GWB-like, into the evildoers ("shitlords") and the oppressed, with the possible, but problematic remainder, being allies, whose status is ever tenuous and usually collapses into shitlord. SJWs do not distinguish between major and minor offenses -- unintentionally using "transgender-ed" instead of "transgender" is as unforgivable as any other act of oppression -- nor do they distinguish repeat and systematic from first-time offenders. They employ a principle of interpretation that is something like the opposite of charity. (If the utterance gives offense under one interpretation, that interpretation is correct.) It is a harsh "justice".
Indeed, it's unclear whether SJWs do not fully grasp the cruelty and inhumanity of their cybermob shame tactics, the anguish it causes, typically to the socially clueless and ASD spectrum types (itself a form of ableism), or just people with older, less plastic, brains, who are unable to keep pace with the rapidly shifting pronoun and non-slur requirements, or whether this is fully grasped, and indeed the retributive point of the exercise. In any case, the SJW hallmark is cruelty in the name of compassion. (And creating incredibly dangerous environments in the name of "safe space".)
Well, as a Nietzsche scholar, I can hardly tell you anything you don't already see better here. The difference between the Christian slave revolt and this one is that with Christianity at least, there is forgiveness.
On one hand, we have this SJW BS flaring up all over the place, attacking people online and making their lives marginally more difficult. On the other we have this dogmatic crusade against cyber-bullying picking up speed and momentum at a rather interesting pace. Both sides are making the same types of ad passiones arguments and neither side seeing the inevitable conflict.
As an impartial observer and someone who views both sides as a bunch of crackpots and assholes with too much time on their hands, I can not wait to see these two trains collide.
True, on both counts.
What's not true is the summary, or the article linked. (It's essential the Faux News version of events.) The Sad Puppies movement isn't really about choosing authors or works based on their color, sex, or creed. The Sad Puppies movement is about two things; First, breaking the "monopoly" of a small group of tastemakers in the nomination process. Second, breaking the "monopoly" of the same small group in determining the winners of the poll. Or, to sum up both in another way, the movement is about overcoming voter apathy and broadening the base of nominated works and voters to include a larger and more representative slice of works and fandom.
Seriously, only a few thousand voters in total currently determine the nominees and the ultimate winners - out of a worldwide fanbase numbering in the millions. Those relative few that have dominated the nomination and selection process for decades (and the idiots who parrot their propaganda) are responding in the typical fashion of the "elites" - by demonizing those who would dare to challenge the self assumed predominance that is theirs by right. They, and the idiots who spout their propaganda, are the ones that invented the idea that Sad Puppies is all about skin color and the presence or absence of ovaries.
On top of that, there's the whole "Johnny come lately" attitude typical of any fandom that faces a sudden influx of "new" fans. The tastemaker elite loathes the "new fan". (Not that the issue is actually new, the roots of the issue (and "political" battles over the Hugos) stretch back to the sudden breakdown of the SF ghetto walls in the late 70's and early 80's when Star Wars and Dungeons & Dragons broke out into popular culture.) But what they feel about the "new fan" is positively puppies and kittens and sunshine compared compared to the antipathy and loathing they feel towards pop culture - their slogan is (or at least should be) "Nerdom for Nerds!".
"Heroic Puppies campaign to free the Hugo awards from the evil clutches of the SJWs"
or
"Band of Neo-Nazis corrupt the Hugo awards with cheat voting."
Come on internet. You can be better than this.
AKA the issue should never have been one of inclusion. It needs to be one of ending exclusion.
Except that science fiction and science fiction fandom has never been exclusionary of women or racial minorities or gays! That's what makes the SJW crusade in fandom so bizarre. They come up with bogus issues like "#racefail," which was the supposed scandal that most WorldCon committees consist of white people. Well, such committees are all entirely voluntary, and AFAIK there's never been a single instance of anyone ever been turned down as a volunteer because they're black or gay or whatever.
I've also read that fandom needs more minorities because some minorities feel uncomfortable at conventions because "there aren't enough people who look like them." Well, whose fault is that? Fans are there because of a love of the genre. Why make a big deal about your race? I've also read complaints about fans asking well-meaning but awkward questions about race, e.g. "What's it like to be black and into science fiction?" Stop the presses! A nerd asks a friendly but awkward question?!? That's never happened before!! And, of course, we have the contradiction that white fans are "supposed to" be more aware of race, but heaven help them if they say something in the wrong way, whatever their intentions.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot