Because one triggers a proven response in the human immune system. By introducing neutered viruses that are easy for the immune system to kill, but are similar enough to the "live" virus to trigger the immune system to attack the real thing.
The other says you should consume wasp stings diluted to the point where there are no wasp stings because water is magic and has a memory and this will cure you of pain. because reasons. Also "quantum".
You say that like it's a bad thing. If the state is paying for your medicine, at the very least it has the right to ensure you aren't spending the money on candy rather than medicine that works. The point of state funded healthcare is that it is in the nations interest for you to be healthy, and therefore productive. If you want candy, buy candy, if you want medical super-expensive-wasp-sting-magic-water-candy, pay for "homeopathy insurance" or some other bullshit.
The stuff the puppies nominated that was genuinely great mostly did well: Pretty sure lots of people voted for GOTG because of all the awesome, puppies or no. The rabids seemed to have about 500 votes total (https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/2015-hugo-stats-initial-analysis/) so, less then 10% of the total vote.
Three Body Problem was well received by all and was not part of the puppies original slate. The rabid puppies jumped on, after the nominations, instead of their own nominated Skin Game (a genuinely great book by a class act of an author) just so they could declare a victory and we all know it. Skin Game, by the way, awesome book: Would have finished a lot higher if the rabids had not abandoned it in favor of jumping on a winner for the sake of point scoring. (http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf) "Parkour, Bitch".
As for not reading the stuff, I read a lot of the books despite not voting, but for one. For one I drew the line. No, not the objectively terrible Vox Day stuff, a few snippets were enough to know that was rubbish.
I'm talking about the one author I will never read ever again.
Never.
Not one more penny from me. In fact not even for free:
I'm talking about Kevin J Anderson!
Why? Because he's Kevin J. Anderson, ruiner of franchises, creator of the sun crusher and the darksaber and fucker-up of Dune. His latest stuff may be 100% gold plated genius (I'd lay odds it's not) but I'll never, ever know, because he's Kevin J "my-jedi-is-a-bigger-jedi-than-yours-Kyp-Durron-was-fucking-terrible" Anderson! I'm proud not to have read his book. Because fool me once Mr Anderson, shame on you, fool me five damn times because you're attached, lamprey like, to franchises I love and just...no. No more of my money. Not ever.
So, I didn't read that book. But not because: Puppies. Not because: Ideology. Because: Oh God I just remembered the end to the meandering pointlessness of Darksaber where the fucking thing just crashes into a rock in total anti-climax. *weeps*.
No. Didn't this time either. I have not declared victory. Attempting to debate and contest arguments does not constitute a declaration of victory (although I'll admit to a touch of sarcasm). But if the majority of your response is an attack on the author, rather than their post, I feel justified in noting it when addressing the remainder of the comment.
If the Puppies had won, this would mean they were right, and they represented the true breadth of fandom, that populist work was underrepresented in the Hugo awards in favor of stuffed nominations for a socially "progressive" agenda.
This would be proof of "SJW" conspiracy at nomination stage.
If the Puppies lost to "no vote", this is the "SJW's" cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
Proof that the SJW anti-puppy campaign (any evidence of this existing, please, provide links, that I cannot find it does not mean it does not exist) controls the actual voting (better than the three active puppy campaigns influenced their voting slates anyway).
If there were no "no awards", but all categories with a non puppy approved author went to that author, this would presumably mean the SJW machine was also in effect, they just corralled their voters into voting tactically in favor of SJW approved writers and threw a bone in the puppy dominated categories to maintain the illusion of a democratic vote.
It seems to me, whatever the result, the puppies would just declare "Mission Accomplished"
But, I may well be wrong: Please tell me, what would a loss for the puppies look like? What outcome of the vote would be evidence that the puppies are wrong and that there is no evil SJW conspiracy?
Is that even an acknowledged possibility? Or is this conspiracy simply accepted fact?
Nothing?
That can't be right! Only the dread SJWs attack the author and not the content. Right?
Your argument that "anyone could vote if they paid $40" is valid, it was a members vote, and that membership is paid for.
So my question is:
With three long running active campaigns to generate new members and promote specific slates.
With an argument that the works promoted were more populist.
Assuming that not all of the existing, non affiliated fanbase were actively involved in a SJW no award conspiracy to keep the populist works down (because, let's face it, if EVERYONE was in on it, it's not a conspiracy it's just the popular opinion)
How in the world did the puppies not utterly dominate?
It's not like there were a lot of voters.
And the puppies were actively promoting signing up without attending. To my knowledge, and do correct me if i'm wrong (with links please, I do genuinely want to know) there was no "SJW" sign up to stop the puppies campaign.
Yes, My (admitted) ineptitude at logging in for the first time is the issue.
Absolutely.
That is the important point we are discussing.
Any actual counter-points to the post?
BTW - no skin in this game, did not vote, never have voted in the Hugos. I love plenty of populist Sci-Fi that the puppies champion, think Butcher Absolutely deserves a Hugo and have no time for preaching for preaching's sake.
The absolutist arguments on both sides, strawmen and the constant changing of goalposts in this cycle of the hugos has intrigued me however.
So, if you disagree with the post, debate the post, not my dipshit failure to post in the logged in tab.
(and re-posted ACTUALLY logged in this time. Sigh.)
Literally anyone could vote if they signed up. The Puppies lost a POPULAR democratic vote.
Their original argument was that their preferences were more populist and would win the popular vote, but the nominations process was being secretly block voted by a small shadowy liberal cabal to keep populist authors off the nominees list if favor of more preachy, pro-liberal agenda authors.
This was the stated reason for their publicly arranged block voting of nominees, to provide the popular vote with a choice they felt was lacking.
The voting fandom responded massively against them.
So now, they are arguing that the popular vote is rigged by the shadowy cabal as well, except it's now not a tiny cabal, it's the majority of fans. Which is less a sneaky cabal of so called "SJWs" and more, you know, most people.
If their actions had supported their "populist" argument, they would provably have carried the day. But putting up people like Kevin J. "suncrusher-I-ruined-star-wars-long-before-jar-jar" Anderson and highly divisive figures like John C Wright and the Rabid Puppies Vox Day up on their slate as the poster boys for their "populist" argument probably didn't help, if they'd put up more genuinely popular, genuinely decent authors like Jim Butcher then their argument may have been a hell of a lot more compelling and effective.
John C Wright and Vox Day were up their simply to provoke outrage at their views, not because of the quality of their writing. Which, at least in the case of Vox Day, is objectively terrible. Many of the puppies chosen authors (not all) were...not actually all that good. Not innovative, or exciting, or fun, or smart. They did not make me think, or shout with Joy, or smile (with, of course, the exception of the excellent Jim Butcher). Most of the winners did.
The no awards were mostly, as far as I can tell, a reaction to the politicization of the awards. And whatever the puppies argument that the awards were always political, these campaigns are what made them so in the public consciousness. By making a political argument for the vote, the puppies forced everyone else to consider the awards in a political, rather than creative context. the trouble there was, when people did consider the issue politically, they decided they didn't agree with the puppies, as evidenced by, you know, the POPULAR VOTE!
Slashdot Mirror
Because one triggers a proven response in the human immune system. By introducing neutered viruses that are easy for the immune system to kill, but are similar enough to the "live" virus to trigger the immune system to attack the real thing. The other says you should consume wasp stings diluted to the point where there are no wasp stings because water is magic and has a memory and this will cure you of pain. because reasons. Also "quantum".
You say that like it's a bad thing. If the state is paying for your medicine, at the very least it has the right to ensure you aren't spending the money on candy rather than medicine that works. The point of state funded healthcare is that it is in the nations interest for you to be healthy, and therefore productive. If you want candy, buy candy, if you want medical super-expensive-wasp-sting-magic-water-candy, pay for "homeopathy insurance" or some other bullshit.
Seriously though, a Trump McAfee debate!? That there is what they call Ratings Gold! There is still room for more crazy in this race.
The stuff the puppies nominated that was genuinely great mostly did well: Pretty sure lots of people voted for GOTG because of all the awesome, puppies or no. The rabids seemed to have about 500 votes total (https://chaoshorizon.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/2015-hugo-stats-initial-analysis/) so, less then 10% of the total vote. Three Body Problem was well received by all and was not part of the puppies original slate. The rabid puppies jumped on, after the nominations, instead of their own nominated Skin Game (a genuinely great book by a class act of an author) just so they could declare a victory and we all know it. Skin Game, by the way, awesome book: Would have finished a lot higher if the rabids had not abandoned it in favor of jumping on a winner for the sake of point scoring. (http://www.thehugoawards.org/content/pdf/2015HugoStatistics.pdf) "Parkour, Bitch". As for not reading the stuff, I read a lot of the books despite not voting, but for one. For one I drew the line. No, not the objectively terrible Vox Day stuff, a few snippets were enough to know that was rubbish. I'm talking about the one author I will never read ever again. Never. Not one more penny from me. In fact not even for free: I'm talking about Kevin J Anderson! Why? Because he's Kevin J. Anderson, ruiner of franchises, creator of the sun crusher and the darksaber and fucker-up of Dune. His latest stuff may be 100% gold plated genius (I'd lay odds it's not) but I'll never, ever know, because he's Kevin J "my-jedi-is-a-bigger-jedi-than-yours-Kyp-Durron-was-fucking-terrible" Anderson! I'm proud not to have read his book. Because fool me once Mr Anderson, shame on you, fool me five damn times because you're attached, lamprey like, to franchises I love and just...no. No more of my money. Not ever. So, I didn't read that book. But not because: Puppies. Not because: Ideology. Because: Oh God I just remembered the end to the meandering pointlessness of Darksaber where the fucking thing just crashes into a rock in total anti-climax. *weeps*.
I will also point out an absence of substantive material in your comment. Again: anything to say on the issues?
No. Didn't this time either. I have not declared victory. Attempting to debate and contest arguments does not constitute a declaration of victory (although I'll admit to a touch of sarcasm). But if the majority of your response is an attack on the author, rather than their post, I feel justified in noting it when addressing the remainder of the comment.
If the Puppies had won, this would mean they were right, and they represented the true breadth of fandom, that populist work was underrepresented in the Hugo awards in favor of stuffed nominations for a socially "progressive" agenda. This would be proof of "SJW" conspiracy at nomination stage. If the Puppies lost to "no vote", this is the "SJW's" cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Proof that the SJW anti-puppy campaign (any evidence of this existing, please, provide links, that I cannot find it does not mean it does not exist) controls the actual voting (better than the three active puppy campaigns influenced their voting slates anyway). If there were no "no awards", but all categories with a non puppy approved author went to that author, this would presumably mean the SJW machine was also in effect, they just corralled their voters into voting tactically in favor of SJW approved writers and threw a bone in the puppy dominated categories to maintain the illusion of a democratic vote. It seems to me, whatever the result, the puppies would just declare "Mission Accomplished" But, I may well be wrong: Please tell me, what would a loss for the puppies look like? What outcome of the vote would be evidence that the puppies are wrong and that there is no evil SJW conspiracy? Is that even an acknowledged possibility? Or is this conspiracy simply accepted fact?
Nothing? That can't be right! Only the dread SJWs attack the author and not the content. Right? Your argument that "anyone could vote if they paid $40" is valid, it was a members vote, and that membership is paid for. So my question is: With three long running active campaigns to generate new members and promote specific slates. With an argument that the works promoted were more populist. Assuming that not all of the existing, non affiliated fanbase were actively involved in a SJW no award conspiracy to keep the populist works down (because, let's face it, if EVERYONE was in on it, it's not a conspiracy it's just the popular opinion) How in the world did the puppies not utterly dominate? It's not like there were a lot of voters. And the puppies were actively promoting signing up without attending. To my knowledge, and do correct me if i'm wrong (with links please, I do genuinely want to know) there was no "SJW" sign up to stop the puppies campaign.
Yes, My (admitted) ineptitude at logging in for the first time is the issue. Absolutely. That is the important point we are discussing. Any actual counter-points to the post? BTW - no skin in this game, did not vote, never have voted in the Hugos. I love plenty of populist Sci-Fi that the puppies champion, think Butcher Absolutely deserves a Hugo and have no time for preaching for preaching's sake. The absolutist arguments on both sides, strawmen and the constant changing of goalposts in this cycle of the hugos has intrigued me however. So, if you disagree with the post, debate the post, not my dipshit failure to post in the logged in tab.
(and re-posted ACTUALLY logged in this time. Sigh.) Literally anyone could vote if they signed up. The Puppies lost a POPULAR democratic vote. Their original argument was that their preferences were more populist and would win the popular vote, but the nominations process was being secretly block voted by a small shadowy liberal cabal to keep populist authors off the nominees list if favor of more preachy, pro-liberal agenda authors. This was the stated reason for their publicly arranged block voting of nominees, to provide the popular vote with a choice they felt was lacking. The voting fandom responded massively against them. So now, they are arguing that the popular vote is rigged by the shadowy cabal as well, except it's now not a tiny cabal, it's the majority of fans. Which is less a sneaky cabal of so called "SJWs" and more, you know, most people. If their actions had supported their "populist" argument, they would provably have carried the day. But putting up people like Kevin J. "suncrusher-I-ruined-star-wars-long-before-jar-jar" Anderson and highly divisive figures like John C Wright and the Rabid Puppies Vox Day up on their slate as the poster boys for their "populist" argument probably didn't help, if they'd put up more genuinely popular, genuinely decent authors like Jim Butcher then their argument may have been a hell of a lot more compelling and effective. John C Wright and Vox Day were up their simply to provoke outrage at their views, not because of the quality of their writing. Which, at least in the case of Vox Day, is objectively terrible. Many of the puppies chosen authors (not all) were...not actually all that good. Not innovative, or exciting, or fun, or smart. They did not make me think, or shout with Joy, or smile (with, of course, the exception of the excellent Jim Butcher). Most of the winners did. The no awards were mostly, as far as I can tell, a reaction to the politicization of the awards. And whatever the puppies argument that the awards were always political, these campaigns are what made them so in the public consciousness. By making a political argument for the vote, the puppies forced everyone else to consider the awards in a political, rather than creative context. the trouble there was, when people did consider the issue politically, they decided they didn't agree with the puppies, as evidenced by, you know, the POPULAR VOTE!