I’ll be interviewed on the Dungeon Crawler podcast in an hour. You can listen live here: http://tobtr.com/7569363
This is an open post to discuss the NFL draft. Skol Vikings!
WorldCon historian Mike Glyer digs out some longtime precedent for not only campaigning, but bloc votes. And it’s actually from the Philcon II committee itself!
There is still time to (a) do a little campaigning to line up a solid bloc of votes for your favorites, (b) get some members—every membership is a potential vote for your favorites, and (c) get your own votes in before our August 25th postmark deadline. In the categories of outstanding FAN MAGAZINE, COVER PAINTING, INTERIOR ILLUSTRATION and SHORT STORY OR NOVELETTE the field is wide open, with no front-runners yet. So far, Bestor’s Demolished Man is leading in the NOVEL class, with Bob Tucker’s Long Loud Silence in second place. Most votes for favorite FAN are divided between old-timer Forrest J. Ackerman and new-timer Harlon Ellison. Galaxy is just edging Astounding as favorite PRO MAGAZINE.
He’s got the scan of the page from the August 1953 Progress Report at File 770. No doubt Larry, Brad, and I can all expect fulsome apologies from our various accusers for all of the false charges of violating the spirit of the law and gamesmanship that have been levied at us.
From New Atheist-in-waiting to cautionary tale in a few short years. I remember when people used to tell me that perhaps Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens were pushovers, but this Carrier guy… or not so much.
Nothing says “Alpha Male” like begging for polyamorous-friendly dates over the Internet:
So, this is experimental. I’d like to go on a date in May. And for the first time, I’m going to try a bat signal: putting a call out on my blog. I don’t know anyone else who has tried doing that, so I have no precedent to work from as to etiquette or even arguments for or against doing it. So I’m just going to do it and see what happens and document and assess. If you know anyone who might have an interest in dating me, let them know. If you might have an interest, read on.
I’ll start by making sure anyone considering this is up to speed. I am polyamorous. I currently have many girlfriends. All I consider my friends. Some are just occasional lovers. Some I am more involved with. They are also polyamorous, or near enough (not all of them identify that way, but all of them enjoy open relationships). And I will always have relationships with them, as long as they’ll have me in their life.
Read the rest of Richard Carrier’s exciting experiment in post-marital dating at Alpha Game.
Johnny Con is feeling a little caught out. And defensive:
1. It’s been recently suggested that I should be ashamed for getting the Hugo for Redshirts (by an author who hasn’t himself read the book).
2. To be clear: I am not. I am deeply pleased it won, and I think it was entirely deserving of the award, and the other awards it won.
3. It’s funny and an easy read, and if you think that’s easy to accomplish as a writer — and still pack an emotional punch — well, try it.
4. The same author suggested (again without reading it), that it was a “social justice” sort of book, which lent itself to winning.
5. It is, in fact probably the least racially/sexually diverse book I’ve written BECAUSE the characters were supposed to reflect a BAD show.
6. Indeed, when the TV script for it was written, they CHANGED the sex of a couple of characters to make it more diverse! This is true.
7. So it really is a bad example of a Social Justice-y sort of book. Much worse, in fact, than my OMW series in general.
8. Also, if the “SJWs” vote en bloc, why would they award me, SWM, when Saladin Ahmed and Mira Grant were on the ballot?
9. The only answer here would be because the SJWs secretly crave straight white male leadership, which would be kinda not SJW-y at all.
10. I’m happy with the politics I have and I try to be a good human, which is apparently what makes me an SJW. But Redshirts is, in fact…
11. … a genuinely TERRIBLE example of a book to show influence of the SJW cabal, both in content, and in its year. It’s a bad argument.
12. The book won for a number of reasons, including people just liked it. But because of an SJW cabal? Really, no. That’s dumb.
13. I’m done.
“Man, I owe you a blowjob,” Duvall said.
“What?” Dahl said.
“What?” Hester said.
“Sorry,” Duvall said. “In ground forces, when someone does you a
favor you tell them you owe them a sex act. If it’s a little thing, it’s
a handjob. Medium, blowjob. Big favor, you owe them a fuck. Force of
habit. It’s just an expression.”
“Got it,” Dahl said.
“No actual blowjob forthcoming,” Duvall said. “To be clear”
“It’s the thought that counts,” Dahl said, and turned to Hester. “What about you? You want to owe me a blowjob, too?”
“I’m thinking about it ,” Hester said.
Best Novel-worthy prose or Participation Hugo? You decide. This is nearly as amusing:
I do find the fixation on me weird, and I really do think it comes down to the fact that I would be the perfect flag-bearer for the sort of person who identifies as a Puppy, if for the inconvenient fact of my personal politics. And also because Beale really has a thing for me, which is straight-up pure envy, as far as I can tell.
Yes, because contempt is so easily confused for straight-up pure envy. What It was a little more than two years ago that I was informed I was desperately jealous of Mr. Scalzi because his blog readership was “ten times the size of mine.” Now that my blog readership is three times the size of his, I’m envious of what, his failed career as a game writer? I’m the lead designer on six different games. His career as a writer? If I find an hour to write every other day, I’m fortunate.
John Scalzi has been attacking me and calling me names for just over ten years now. He’s been attacking my readers and calling them names for nearly as long. It’s absolutely stupid for the pathetic fraud to pretend he doesn’t know why we continue to go after him. He’s squirmed, he’s dissembled, and he’s spun, but he’s never simply admitted that he lied. He’s never apologized. He’s never simply admitted that he was wrong.
It’s kind of a pity the traffic didn’t quite hit 2 million this month, but fell 90k short. Because this would have been the perfect time to juxstapose that graphic with Scalzi’s 2010 interview with Lightspeed, in which he exaggerated his traffic by a mere 1.7 million.
there’s more to John Scalzi and his writing than meets the eye. For one
thing, his blog gets an extraordinary amount of traffic for a writer’s
website–Scalzi himself quotes it at over 45,000 unique visitors daily and
more than two million page views monthly. And it’s well-deserved
traffic, too, in light of the man’s reputation for posting unique
I find it amusing that so many SJWs still try to pretend that 300k pageviews per month was “extraordinary traffic” while simultaneously insisting that more than 6x that much is nothing. The lesson, as always: SJWS always lie. Case in point:
You can always trust a right-wing moderate to shoot at a potential ally:
Starting three years ago, Larry Correia, successful science fiction
writer, decided to test his suspicion that the Hugo Awards of the World
Science Fiction Society were increasingly being awarded through the
action of a small group, and increasingly reflect the tastes of that
small group rather than a more general population of science fiction
There were many ideas what the reason could be: a desire by the
active voters to reward more “literary” work. An ideological bias toward
“liberal” writers and themes — which seemed to be more plausible after
attacks on more “conservative” writers like Correia, attacks on the
movie Ender’s Game because the author of the original novel,
Orson Scott Card, is opposed to same-sex marriage, and the expulsion of
Vox Day from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America,
arguably in violation of their own bylaws, for having offensive views on
race and sexual roles.
(Just for full disclosure: Scott Card has been a personal friend for
something like 30 years, and along with Ray Bradbury was the first to
suggest maybe I actually could do this writing thing. Sarah Hoyt, who is
also involved in Sad Puppies, is a close friend and as most PJ Media
readers know, my partner in the Book Plug Friday column. Larry Correia
is a Facebook friend who I’ve never met personally. And I think Vox Day
is an obnoxious and unlikeable dolt, as I’ve said in these pages in the past.)
Over the years, I’ve observed two things about people. First, people always
do what they find most rewarding; and second, every human institution
optimizes its behavior to maximize rewards — and while money isn’t
everything, when you’re looking for what’s rewarding it’s the way to
bet. Who stands to get a monetary benefit from the direction the Hugo awards have taken?
Now, at that point, we have to go back and reference something Vox
Day — who, let me remind you, I think is an obnoxious and unlikable dolt
If we look back at the last several years, there is a surprising
regularity to be seen: the same people are nominated over and over again
for several of the down-list awards, like Best Editor; those people are
all associated more or less closely with one publisher, Tor Books; and
much of the most vehement objection has been from authors and others
directly connected to Tor Books. The number of votes that decide the
election is very small — tens of votes.
Wait, Charlie, I’m not entirely sure on your position on Vox Day. Could you repeat it?
Translation: I DISAVOW VOX DAY, I DISAVOW AND DENOUNCE VOX DAY, I DISAVOWANDDENOUNCEANDDONOTLIKEVOXDAY! (please, for the love of all that is good and holy, don’t hit me!)
They do not like me, wet or dry
They do not like me, low or high
They do not like me, dry or wet
Because they are so moderate
They do not like me here or there
They do not like me anywhere
They do not like me on the Net
Because they are so moderate
If only I would be more nice
And pour out sugar in place of spice
Then it would all be duly meet
We’d march off to our brave defeat
They do not like me when we win
They do not like me for my sin
They do not like me as a threat
Because they are so moderate
Say this for Charlie, at least he’s not afraid to go show:
William Strunk, Jr. @cdrusnret
you say you referred to @voxday as a dolt in the past, but your link doesn’t appear germane?
Vox Day @voxday
That’s just his way of putting up his hands and saying “please don’t hit me!”
Charlie Martin @chasrmarti
Vox, let’s just cut to the chase. You wave your hands and scream, I say “fuck off”, we go on with our day.
Vox Day @voxday
Maybe if you just denounce me once more, the SJWs will finally love you for who you are, White Buddha.
The SJWs in science fiction believe that if they can control the narrative, if they can convince the media to tell the story their way, they are going to retain their control of the science fiction establishment. They are given every opportunity to spin the narrative and make their case; Brad, Larry, and I were contacted by a Wall Street Journal reporter yesterday, which was a welcome change from most of the coverage that we’ve been seeing of late, but so too were John Scalzi and George Martin.
It’s just like one sees on the cable news. If a talking head has on a liberal guest, the liberal appears alone to sell the narrative. If a talking head has on a conservative guest, a liberal guest usually appears to dispute the narrative. And although it is only a guess, I suspect that the way that the story is likely to go will be moderately anti-Puppy, in light of the reporter actually “playing devil’s advocate” in conversation with me.
When I pointed out how the Puppy case is bolstered by comparing the number of Hugo nominations belonging to those in the Making Light clique, (15 for Charles Stross, 15/14 for Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and 9 for John Scalzi compared to 12 for Isaac Asimov, 12 for Robert Heinlein, and 7 for Arthur C. Clarke), the reporter shot back, and I quote, “yeah, but they’re editors!”
Although I pointed out to him that a) Charles Stross and John Scalzi are not, in fact, editors, and b) Isaac Asimov was an editor as well as a writer, I got the feeling that he was not likely to quote me concerning those readily observable and very telling facts. We’ll see, perhaps I’m wrong.
But the anti-Puppy influence over the mainstream media is largely irrelevant. Because, when people look more closely at the situation, here is the sort of thing they are seeing the Anti-Puppies say:
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan: “It’s not the Hugo ballot – that is a problem, but I am solving it by gleefully voting No Award to lots of categories, and I think I will make a point not to read any of it just to annoy you – it’s the strutting and posturing and pronouncing of you guys that I find hilarious. OK, I tell a lie, some of you are just boring and lame, Kratman for example can’t even insult people creatively, but you have moments of pure comedy genius.”
Hampus Eckerman: “Honestly, when you are saying that there are no unwritten rules, the
only thing you’re really saying is that you haven’t got the social
competence to notice them. Even when people write them on your nose.
Mickey Finn: “I’ve been making my way through the short stories, novellas and
novelettes, and so far haven’t even encountered a competently polished
NelC: “I’m not absolutely convinced that you’re not the type of loony who
thinks he can gain advantage by pretending to be a (different kind of)
loony, but either way, you’re seriously fucked in the head.”
Alexvdl: “I think you have articulated better than anyone else why Beale’s (and
other puppies) reliance on rating systems shows how far outside fandom
Whatever reader: “I had a great time voting “No Award” today… I’d rather give the award to a trash can than to the crap they spent years working on.”
By contrast, here is how the non-Puppies in the field see the situation.
Rick Moen: “I think it’s abundantly clear what about the Beale and Torgersen
campaigning and (apparent) acquisition of nomination votes has made
habitual Hugo voters and Worldcon co-goers very annoyed and (in my
estimation) in a mood to terminate what they see as behaviour hostile to
Greg Ellis: “When all of this blew up I was not even a non-attending supporting
member of WorldCon. I’ve known about the Hugos for years, but never knew
I had, as a fan, a chance to vote for nominees or on the final ballot.
That all changed this year. What also changed was that I came down on
the Sad Puppies side of the debate. For awhile I was trying to look at both sides and judge equitably. I
was trying to be fair and open-minded and non-biased. Then I asked the
wrong question of the wrong people at the wrong time. Even Brianna Wu
chimed in on that one. I was a “white supremacist” by mere association
with Brad Torgerson and Larry Correia because they knew Vox Day and I
was friends with Brad and Larry on FaceBook. Guilt-by-association. I do
not tolerate being accused of something that anyone who knows me
understands that I am not. You want to push me into somebody else’s
camp, make an accusation like that.”
RI: I’ve been a spectator to this conflict for several months now. To be
honest, I didn’t even know who any of the participants were when I first
started following. Now, because of the outcry against you, Mr. Correia,
and Mr. Torgersen I have become a daily reader of your blog and am
rapidly burning through Mr. Corriea’s books.
Bojoti, a Worldcon Supporting member appears to share similar sentiments:
I knew absolutely nothing about the Sad Puppies until this year. I knew of the Hugos but little about them, either. I’d followed George R.R. Martin’s Not a Blog for years, and I remember him encouraging people to vote because the Hugos were their award (except now, they aren’t). But, back then, I had a house full of kids which meant less time for reading and fewer dollars for sure! Now, the kids are gone, and I have more of both of the aforementioned. When I discovered that WorldCon would be held in the Midwest in 2016, I was excited and decided to get a supporting membership for this year and attend the next.
I didn’t realize all the turmoil about Sad Puppies until after the nominations were announced. I came to the situation too late to nominate and unaware that my membership would be an affront to the TrueFans. I just wanted to participate in and give back to a genre that has been integral to my life. Instead, I find that I’m not welcome at the cool kids’ table, which is ironically hilarious, because my science fiction ways were unpopular to the non-science fiction crowd of my youth.
As is my researching way, I took to the Internet to look at all sides. I went all the way back to the inception of Sad Puppies. I read “Making Light.” I Googled, read, and digested from a wide spectrum from news sources (most very biased and inaccurate), authors’ websites, Twitter, and Facebook.
I think what the TrueFans and Sad Puppies don’t realize is that they are being watched by the great unwashed masses, hoi polloi, the little people of science fiction. Some of the behavior and rhetoric is so hateful and venomous that I regret my membership. Authors were saying that the new members didn’t love science fiction; they were claiming that they didn’t even read! Some were even saying stupid things like the Koch brothers bought my membership. TrueFans were disgusted by the thought of new members. They like the WorldCon being small and are actively against new members.
I’m rethinking attending WorldCon 2016. I’ll wait to see what happens at Sasquan before I decide. If people are going to act crazy like a frenetic bag of cut snakes, I want no part of that fandom (or Fandom). I don’t need to spend money to be ostracized, belittled, and hated. I’m sure I can get that for free, elsewhere!
The TrueFans are pushing the new members right into the Sad Puppies’ doghouse. I wasn’t a Sad Puppy, but if the TrueFans don’t want me, they have proven the Sad Puppies’ charge of insular exclusivity. When the TrueFans band together and decide as a bloc NOT to read the works and agree to vote No Award to Sad Puppy nominations, they’ve lost any respect or sympathy I had for them. When people advocate putting the Puppies “down,” I’m horrified. When people write “basically if the “hero” isn’t white and male, the Puppies will get all Sad at you and threaten to rape you to death. Like the good, tolerant humans they are, natch,” I’m sickened. When an author opines the correct way to treat the Sad Puppies is “Well, we make fun of them. We refuse to play with them. We refuse to share our resources with them,” I flash back to the petty games of the middle school mean girls’ cliques.
Baen Books author John Ringo has an idea where things are headed and why:
The SJBs, CHORFs, what have you are facing an uphill climb. Their ‘award winning authors’ are hardly popular in the mainstream (also frequently boring as shit on a panel) and every convention which has tried to stay entirely ‘SJW’ has found it has little or no market.
The CHORFs accuse the SPs of ‘fighting to retain white-male privilege.’ The reality is that the CHORFs are desperate to retain any sort of relevance at all. ‘Their’ conventions are failing. ‘Their’ books don’t sell as well as ‘pulp crap’. ‘Their’ magazines are losing circulation and closing. Lose control of the Hugos and they become irrelevant. And desperate regimes get crazier and crazier the more desperate they become.
They are not completely irrelevant yet. But they will be. And they fear it. Their over-the-top reactions make that very clear indeed.
Someone alert David Pakman! There are SERIAL HUG RAPISTS on the loose in Virginia:
A Hug Now Requires “Affirmative Consent” At UVA — Or You’re Guilty Of Sexual Assault
If you don’t explicitly ask for and get permission for your clothed body to touch another person’s clothed body in a hug, you could now be accused of “sexual assault” through “sexual contact” at UVA.
It’s part of UVA’s broad new “sexual assault” policy, explains Hans Bader at Liberty Unyielding:
Because U.Va. lumps together touching, “however slight,” and intercourse when it comes to sexual assault, requiring “affirmative” consent for both. (“Affirmative consent” is a misleading term, and does not include many forms of consent that occur in the real world, and are recognized by the courts, as I explain at this link. The new policy further warns that “Relying solely on non-verbal communication before or during sexual activity can lead to misunderstanding and may result in a violation of this Policy.”
Here is the essential bit from the new UVA “sexual assault” policy:
A. SEXUAL ASSAULT Sexual Assault consists of (1) Sexual Contact and/or (2) Sexual Intercourse that occurs without (3) Affirmative Consent.
(1) Sexual Contact is:
- Any intentional sexual touching
- However slight
- With any object or body part (as described below)
- Performed by a person upon another person
Sexual Contact includes (a) intentional touching of the breasts, buttocks, groin or genitals, whether clothed or unclothed, or intentionally touching another with any of these body parts; and (b) making another touch you or themselves with or on any of these body parts.
Better not hug your wife tonight. Not without Affirmative Consent. You might think “hug rape” sounds ridiculous now, but it wasn’t all that long ago that “marital rape” sounded totally nonsensical too.
It was suggested that they also serve, who inadvertently and unknowingly do the bidding of the Evil Legion of Evil through their ludicrously predictable reactions. And lo, a badge for this brigade of Unwitting Minions was created. Evil Legion of Evil minions are free to award it to those whose behavior is so egregiously stupid or shortsighted or self-destructive that they could not possibly serve your Supreme Dark Lord better if they were consciously doing His Evil Bidding.
Given that they are, without exception, unique and special snowflakes, they naturally all bear the title “Minion #1”.
On a not entirely unrelated note, RI explains why he is now reading this blog and Larry Correia’s books:
I’ve been a spectator to this conflict for several months now. To be honest, I didn’t even know who any of the participants were when I first started following. Now, because of the outcry against you, Mr. Correia, and Mr. Torgersen I have become a daily reader of your blog and am rapidly burning through Mr. Corriea’s books. I’d like to think I stand somewhere in the between you and Corriea. I’ve noticed you’ve been calling attention to some of the unethical book reviewing practices of the SJWs and I found one I thought you would like to point out on your blog.
This person openly admits to downgrading her review after finding out about Correia’s politics.
If I am any evidence of a growing trend, then the SJWs are basically screaming themselves into irrelevance. I am glad you have decided to wade into this and stand up for your beliefs and stand against the terrorism of the left. God bless you, sir.
This is the perspective that is so often ignored. What people are assumed to perceive, and what they will actually perceive, are often two different things. Larry once said that the benefit of telling the truth is that you have no need to worry about keeping your stories straight, and another one is that people tend to recognize those who tell the truth, whether they accept the truth on that particular subject or not.
Apparently we need to readjust our vocabularies again. It’s no longer white/yellow/red/brown separatism, it’s just militant-shaming.
As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.
see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see
communities actively struggling against mental health crises and
premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being
smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable
responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical
decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political
I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful….We need to clarify what we mean by terms like “violence” and
“peaceful.” Because, to be clear, violence is beating, harassing,
tazing, assaulting and shooting Black, trans, immigrant, women, and
queer people, and that is the reality many of us are dealing with daily.
Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only
lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a
deadly and irresponsible demand.
The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.
Black people know this, and have
employed these tactics for a very, very long time. Calling them
uncivilized, and encouraging them to mind the Constitution is racist,
and as an argument fails to ground itself not only in the violent
political reality in which Black people find themselves, but also in our
centuries-long tradition of resistance, one that has taught effective
strategies for militance and direct action to virtually every other
current movement for justice.
There is your choice, white America. Racism, aka “civilization and the Constitution” or living amongst an entitled and vibrant population that feels entirely justified in burning down the city around itself. I think it’s long past time for forced integration. But not for schoolchildren, for those who claim to oppose separatism. Let’s bus every self-professed “anti-racist” to Baltimore and make them live and work there.
They seem to think all of White America would rather die than be called racist. And they’re probably not wrong about the SJWs. But what the advocates of multiculturalism forgot is that Mexicans and Asians despise blacks in a way that few whites ever have, and they feel absolutely no guilt for the so-called “legacy of slavery”.
And if you’re going to try to make American Indians feel guilty about racial separatism, well, good luck with that.