This may explain why the pinkshirts are so remarkably shy about engaging with the Evil Legion of Evil:
Dude, please. You’ve got 45 fucking Hugo nominations. Disqualify would be saying your opinion doesn’t count because you are a white male and have privilege. Shit. Looking at that picture you’ve got Santa Privilege.
Instead the fact that one dude has 45 nominations is a pretty damned good indicator that your little pond has gone stagnant. That isn’t disqualification. That is stating the obvious. I said you guys were a tiny little clique, but I didn’t realize it was that inbred. That is something so absurd that when I learned your blog had 28 it blew my mind. It was so ridiculous that when somebody else pointed out that you actually have FORTY FIVE in total, I didn’t believe them. I scoffed at first. Even me, the guy who started this big open public conversation we’re finally having about the Hugos being broken, thought to myself, naw, that’s impossible. There’s no freaking way they’d give some individual 45 nominations and 9 Hugos.
So, then when a guy with 45 Hugo noms writes about me, what… What are you up to now? Six? Eight articles about Sad Puppies? And in said articles misconstrues damn near everything, and repeatedly assures his readers, don’t worry, comrades, the system is fine, system is our friend, and only bad people work outside of system… Well, that’s just fishy.
It isn’t disqualification to note that somebody benefiting directly from a broken system might be in favor of said system. In your case it is just extra pathetic and kind of sad. It also explains why you seem to actually believe that I’m driven by a desire to get a trophy. I really don’t want your people’s approval and I truly don’t give a shit about me winning (and don’t worry, if I’m nominated again, I will prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt).
“No wonder you won’t engage”
Engage what? You specifically? Your bullshit is no different than the other narrative bullshit, so I respond to them in mass. Honestly Glyer 45 Hugos, internet arguing is a spectator sport, frankly your 28 Hugo Fanzine doesn’t have enough traffic for me to justify the time responding there (Which is why, I’m going to cut and paste this response over to Facebook when I’m done).
I’m kind of busy engaging the entire SJW internet to spend much time worrying about your bad Shakespeare. But it shows what an interesting selective memory you’ve got there. I’ve written in depth and rather openly about what I’m doing. You write about it and make shit up to explain to your clique what their narrative should be. I’ve repeatedly written since clarifying things, but you just ignore, and make more shit up about what I *really* meant.
And I didn’t bother with your last one, because I don’t think Dogberry was compiling links to actual quotes of his opponents being assholes.
But while I’m thinking about it, here is an interesting thought on “engaging”. Do you realize that in all this time, and all this controversy, not a single one of my opponents has actually taken the time to contact me to speak about this directly? I’ve been contacted by a bunch of people who are secretly on my side, and I’ve been contacted by many moderate fence sitters and people genuinely concerned for the future of the Hugos. But the side opposed to what I’m doing? None. None of the interview places, none of the award winning fanzines, none of the SJW bloggers with their fingers on the pulse of fandom. Zip. Zero. No engagement, just ignore what I actually say and do, and make up bullshit instead.
Now, I’ve talked to Mike Glyer via email and he actually strikes me as being on the saner and more reasonable side of Pink SF. I may not share his taste in authors, but he does a credible job of keeping fandom informed of what is going on in the science fiction world. Nothing wrong with that. He doesn’t have 45 Hugo nominations because he lobbied for them, but because people in fandom liked what he was doing. Unlike the Scalziettes, he clearly recognizes that Brad wants to save the Hugo Awards from themselves and that I could not be any less interested in winning approval from the SF rabbits.
And therein lies the problem. If even the more reasonable and clear-sighted people on the other side, even those among the very few willing to communicate directly with us, are unable to see what we, and a considerable number of science fiction and fantasy readers, very clearly see as a genre-killing cancer at work, then there isn’t any form of rational compromise possible.
Which, of course, may well be the case. If so, time and technology are on our side. It’s not going to be us eradicating them, but rather, the fact that the gatekeepers who formerly enabled them are going out of business. We’ll know the game is over when those who attacked us as vile and so forth come crawling to us, hat in hand, begging for the opportunities that they denied us when they were in power.
Not that it is all about revenge. I’ve never cared about cons and fandom. It’s not my scene. And perhaps that is what many of them hate most about us. We legitimately don’t care what they do, what they think, or what they say.
UPDATE: We have detente! Larry has come out firmly in favor of reading books for which one votes and Mike concurs:
I don’t have to say this but I think he means it. If the rest of the people behind Sad Puppies 3 take his statement to heart, and don’t just treat it as some kind of dogwhistle, they will end up enriching the award’s representation instead of merely doing a hack on it.
How fortunate that everyone supporting Rabid Puppies has read Tom Kratman, Steve Rzasa, and John C. Wright. And anyone who hasn’t, the situation is easily rectified given the links provided.