Allum Bohkari counts up the categories:
This year, the Sad and Rabid Puppies have done it again. Ten out of fifteen Hugo Award categories have been completely dominated by Puppy-endorsed nominees — double what the campaigns achieved in 2015. The Puppies have also secured three out of five nominations for Best Novel, three out of four nominations for Best Short-Form Dramatic Presentation, and three out of five nominations for Best Long-Form Editor.
In total, the Rabid Puppies swept six categories on their own, while a combination of Sad & Rabid puppy nominations swept a further four.
Some of the Rabid Puppies nominations this year — such as a My Little Pony episode for Best Short-Form Dramatic Presentation and a porn parody in Best Short Story — seem clearly intended as troll options, a demonstration of the Puppies’ power to exert their will on the awards.
That seems unlikely, considering that we have been repeatedly, and reliably, informed that the Puppies are irrelevant. I think the only convincing explanation is that no one can reasonably deny the literary merit of future science fiction classics such as “Space Raptor Butt Invasion”.
This comment from Al was enough to make even a dark lord smile:
What is weird about all this as that in the entire spectrum of the culture wars a group of scifi nerds, fantasy geeks and video game enthusiasts are winning……they are actually taking ground back from the left and they aren’t stopping for sh$t…these guys take scalps, burn their enemies bodies, and p!ss on their ashes and move on to the next target of total annihilation..they are unmerciful and brutal………beautiful…many people on the right should take notice…this is a case study in winning and what winning is……something the right sorely needs to learn….
Join the pack. We’ll teach you how to howl.
Some of you may recall this back on August 23, 2015:
No doubt George Martin, John Scalzi, David Gerrold, The Guardian, and
the rest of the SJWs will try to portray this as a resounding defeat for
us, but keep this in mind: the side that resorts to a scorched earth
strategy is the one that is losing and in retreat. All they have
accomplished is to convert many Sad Puppies into Rabid Puppies.
They have talked about sending us a message, and we have heard it. I
don’t know about you, but the message I heard was “bring more Puppies.”
Give them credit where it is due. They made a serious effort, leading to 4,032 nominating ballots this year, nearly twice as many as last year’s record total. It didn’t matter. We heard the message. We brought more Puppies.
Well done, all of you Rabids. Very well done. According to Mike Glyer, the Rabid Puppies placed 64 of its 81 recommendations on the final ballot. I understand we actually would have done a little better than that were it not for the odd withdrawal or disqualification. (I’ll do my own count tomorrow; David Barnett had it at 62 of 80 in the Guardian.) You understand, as the other side does not, that there is no end to cultural war. They still think we can be intimidated, or shamed, or guilted somehow, because those are the tactics that have worked for their kind for decades, if not generations.
But we are immune to such things. Let them scoff, let them minimize, let them posture, let them cry, it makes absolutely no difference what they do or what they say. There is nothing that they can do except vote No Award and change the rules.
We have succeeded in breaking the Tor cabal’s deleterious death grip on science fiction. Next year, the next phase will begin. And we will be ready for it.
Are you not entertained? And more importantly, are you in?
For more than 200 years, the question of free trade has been considered
settled by economists. However, advancements in technology have
considerably changed the world since David Ricardo popularized the
concept of Comparative Advantage in the early 19th century, and the rise
of economic populism around the world is increasingly calling long-held
assumptions into question.
On the Question of Free Trade is a public debate between Dr. James
D. Miller, Associate Professor of Economics at Smith College, and Vox
Day, the author of The Return of the Great Depression, in which they
address the vital question of whether free trade is intrinsically
beneficial or detrimental to a national economy. Both participants are
well-versed in economic history and economic theory, which permits them
to bypass the political side issues that so often cloud such debates and
focus on the core issues involved. The post-debate Q&A session is
On the Question of Free Trade is 46 pages, DRM-free, and $2.99. It is available only on Amazon. Brainstorm members should have already received their free copy via email. If you are a Brainstorm member who needs to convert the .epub file to Kindle-friendly .mobi format, please download Calibre.
Primaries today in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Pennsylvania is the big one. If Trump does well there, it’s all but in the bag.
I wouldn’t be shocked if either Cruz or Kasich finally give up after today, if Trump does well enough.
This is an open thread to discuss the primaries and report results as they come in.
If you can get away, work at home, or have a sufficiently relaxed employer, don’t hesitate to join us at the Rabid Puppy Hugo Nomination Party, being held at Brainstorm today. The Party kicks off at 12:30 Eastern; the shortlist announcements are scheduled to start at 1 PM. Everyone is invited, so register here if you want to join the party.
Considering that we had a great time being No Awarded last August, I can guarantee that we’ll have a good time whether we sweep the whole damn thing or we are skunked. I’ve already got a very good bottle of red wine awaiting the ritual uncorking, so you may want to contemplate your own libationary strategy.
Also, if you happen to see the vote totals being reported, please write them down.
I am a harsh critic of the American judiciary. I think it is, structurally speaking, probably the biggest single problem in the USA today besides the immigrant invasion. But even in the morass of political corruption that is the judiciary, there are a few good men worthy of the title they bear:
Sgt. Joseph Serna of the US Army Special Forces was arrested and charged with driving under the influence in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He got probation and entered a treatment program. He had to regularly report to the court on his treatment. During one of those court appearances, he confessed to Judge Lou Olivera that he had lied about a recent urine test.
Judge Olivera was himself a veteran, having served during the Gulf War. He understood that though Serna had broken the law, he was not a criminal by nature.
But he had to do his duty, so Judge Olivera sentenced Serna to spent 24 hours in jail. Then he took off his robe and joined Serna in his cell for the full 24 hours. The Fayetteville Observer reports:
“Where are we going, judge?” Serna asked.
“We’re going to turn ourselves in,” Olivera said.
“He said he was going to stay with me,” Serna said. “I couldn’t process a judge being my cellmate.
“They take me to the cell, and I’m sitting on my bunk. And, then, in walks the judge.
And then the two veterans talked:
Mostly, from five in the afternoon on April 13 until 6:30 a.m. the next day, the judge and the veteran talked about their respective military service, Serna’s post-traumatic stress disorder from three tours of duty in Afghanistan and how the inmate could turn around his downward spiral that had resulted in a driving-while-impaired charge and other serious traffic offenses. […]
“We talked for hours about our families and our military service,” Olivera says. “Our dreams for us and our families, and the road to take us there.”
The judge wanted to help Serna climb out of the hole:
“I thought about a story that I once read,” Olivera says. “It talked about a soldier with PTSD in a hole,” he says. “A family member, a therapist and a friend all throw down a rope to help the veteran suffering. Finally, a fellow veteran climbs into the hole with him.
“The soldier suffering with PTSD asks, ‘Why are you down here?’ The fellow veteran replied, ‘I am here to climb out with you.’
One has the responsibility to do one’s duty. That is one measure of a man. But how one does one’s duty is arguably a more significant measure.
One thing science fetishists can’t bear is to have their obvious ignorance of science pointed out:
Babak Golshahi @bgolshahi1
I love being able to back up what I say with hard evidence, peer reviewed scientific consensus.
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
50 percent of which is proven to be wrong when replication is attempted. You’re out of date.
Babak Golshahi @bgolshahi1
replication of what? You got a peer reviewed piece or really any article that backs up your claim? Waiting.
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
Mindlessly repeating the words “peer review” and citing “articles” shows you’re a low-IQ ignoramus.
Babak Golshahi @bgolshahi1
you apologize for that or you’re blocked
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
Block away, moron. It won’t fix peer review or change the fact that you’re both stupid and ignorant.
Babak Golshahi @bgolshahi1
You are blocked from following @bgolshahi1 and viewing @bgolshahi1’s Tweets.
I wish more of these morons would use Randi Harper’s anti-GG autoblocker, so I wouldn’t be subjected to their repetitive idiocy.
It is important to understand that if you’re prone to demanding “peer reviewed pieces” or shouting “logical fallacy” at people with whom you are arguing, you’re probably a midwit who doesn’t really understand what you’re talking about. In both these, and other similar cases, what we have is a person who has seen someone else win an argument successfully refuting another individual’s argument by comparing scientific evidence or identifying a specific logical fallacy being committed, and trying to imitate them without understanding what the other person was actually doing.
But if there is no genuine substance behind the demand or the identification, if you don’t have your own competing scientific evidence or you can’t point out the actual logical fallacy – and there is a massive difference between the set of flawed syllogisms and the subset of logical fallacies – then you have no business talking about such things.
The failure to cite a peer-reviewed study means nothing in the absence of competing citations. The claim of logical fallacy means nothing when the precise fallacy is not identified. If you don’t understand those things, stop embarrassing yourself by arguing with people and start reading.
Otherwise, you’re no different than the ignorant South Pacific islander building runways in the hopes that the magic sky machines will descend bearing gifts.
This is the first of the two election cycles I predicted beginning. So far, so anticipated:
Austria’s government was licking its wounds after the anti-immigration far-right triumphed in presidential elections, dealing a major blow to a political establishment seen by voters as out of touch and ineffectual.
According to preliminary results, Norbert Hofer of the Freedom party came a clear first with 36% of the vote in the first round of elections for the largely, but not entirely, ceremonial post of head of state.
Candidates from the two ruling centrist parties, which have effectively run Austria since the end of the second world war, failed to even make it into a runoff on 22 May, coming fourth and fifth each with 11% of the vote.
The result means that for the first time since 1945, Austria will not have a president backed by either Chancellor Werner Faymann’s Social Democrats or their centre-right coalition partners, the People’s party.
Having a president in the Habsburg dynasty’s former palace in Vienna not from either of the two main parties could shake up the traditionally staid and consensus-driven world of Austrian politics.
“This is the beginning of a new political era,” the Freedom party leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, said after what constituted the best result at federal level for the former party of the late Joerg Haider, calling it “historic”.
The Oesterreich tabloid described Hofer’s victory as a “tsunami that has turned our political landscape upside down”.
It’s very good news for everyone that the Freedom Party, AfD, the Swedish Democrats, and other nationalist parties are rising fast. At this rate, the nationalists will come to power in the second election cycle, in time to begin the necessary demographic modifications without excessive violence.
Ted Cruz demonstrates his anti-establishment bona fides by siding with John Kasich against Donald Trump:
Senator Ted Cruz and Gov. John R. Kasich of Ohio have agreed to coordinate in future primary contests in a last-ditch effort to deny Donald J. Trump the Republican presidential nomination, with each candidate standing aside in certain states amid growing concerns that Mr. Trump cannot otherwise be stopped.
In a statement late Sunday night, Mr. Cruz’s campaign manager, Jeff Roe, said that the campaign would “focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn clear the path for Governor Kasich to compete in Oregon and New Mexico.”
Minutes after Mr. Roe’s statement, the Kasich campaign put out a similar message. The Ohio governor’s chief strategist, John Weaver, said that his campaign would shift its resources to states in the West and “give the Cruz campaign a clear path in Indiana.”
Both campaigns said they expected allies and third-party groups to follow their lead, and a representative from the “super PAC” supporting Mr. Kasich confirmed late Sunday that it would not advertise in Indiana.
I very much doubt this is going to help them stop Trump. They’re operating in 2D while Trump is moving around in 3D. But it demonstrates my point about how Trump is on track to reach 1,237; his big win in New York has boosted him in Pennsylvania and California, the two states in which he needs to do well in order to go over the top.
While it’s true that Cruz hasn’t played nicely with the GOP establishment, it’s always been clear that he wants to be a part of it. Now he’s not bothering to pretend otherwise. He’s a smart guy, and he would have been a pretty good candidate several election cycles ago. But he’s still playing the game, and the time for playing the game is over.
Conservatives United Cruz Kasich. C.U.C.K.
John C. Wright sees through the SJWs and their little speech-policing tactics:
A reader with the euphonious name of Ecreegan hold forth an opinion on the courtesy owed to transvestites, transgendered, and transrationals.
Sometimes there’s no polite option. Tell me, what pronoun do I use for a pre-operative male-to-female transexual? “She” is a lie. “He” is considered highly offensive, and “it” is considered beyond the pale. (I try to use names. The new name is not a lie, even if it doesn’t make any sense.)
I very strongly disagree, so much so that I cannot tell if you are making a joke.
When you say the words “considered highly offensive” I cannot imagine anyone having any right to be offended at such a thing, nor any honest man taking such offense seriously.
To the contrary, it is highly offensive even to assert that an honest man should lie like a dog, a lie no one believes and no one can believe, merely to please the arbitrary whims of some petty tyrant trying to demean your soul and rob you of dignity.
The rule in English is that males and male objects are “he”, and persons whose sex is unknown or undetermined is also “he.” One says “he or she” only in a legal document where that degree of precision overwhelms the need for good grammar. Otherwise is it an error. “They” used in a singular merits horsewhipping.
A man who cuts off his penis and has false breasts implanted is not changing his sex, that is, his biological reality, but is attempting to change his social role: he is a man who wants to be treated with the honors and titles of a wife and mother. He also suffers from profound mental illness, so much so that he cuts off parts of his body.
But since the pronoun deals with the sex and not with social roles, he has no right to be offended if he is a “he”.
It is like being offended that A is A or being offended that twice two is four. If twice two were four, then there would be four lights. There are five lights!
More to the point, it is like being offended if a prole says Oceania was allied with Eastasia last year. Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!
Saying a he is a “he” is not what offends.
The political correction officer is playing a social dominance game with you. He is making himself to be offended with you so that you will obey him.
Precisely. The correct pronoun for both a man and an individual of indeterminate sex is “he”. This is a long-established grammatical rule and also happens to be in line with science. One no more need call an amputated man wearing a dress “a woman” than one need call a costumed man wearing a furry lupine outfit “a wolf”.
One can, of course, quite reasonably elect to indulge one’s friends if one sees fit. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with addressing a friend as “Emperor” if he happens to sincerely believe he is Napoleon. But etiquette does not demand that we automatically defer to the delusions of others.