The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Anushka Mokosh]

I can't make my mind up.

Is it Spacebunny or Vox Day who also goes under the name RequiresHate...?

Vox Day and RequiresHate are definitely different people. One is ultra right. The other ultra left. Two sides of a coin really. A very shitty coin, pardon my French.

 

[Ursa major]

Left wing? It depends whether one believes RH's own estimation of herself, or Laura Mixen's, I suppose. (It isn't that ultras of all stripes can't be aggressive -- they can -- that makes me doubt her credentials; it's some of the targets upon whom she chooses to vent.)


EDIT: From Laura Mixen's report:

The bulk of her targets—despite her progressively-slanted rhetoric—have been women, people of color, and other marginalized or vulnerable people.

 

[svalbard]

Nope, he's totes been taken out of context. The itchy and burny VD is now claiming he was taken out of context and isn't really a racist, so someone got the bright idea to quote him for a few paragraphs. Yeah, doesn't make it better. Makes it a lot worse. Context is king.

Wow! I am stunned that this type of bigotry and hatred still exists especially in the literary world. I really must live a sheltered existance, because I thought this type of stuff was consigned to the history books.

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Left wing? It depends whether one believes RH's own estimation of herself, or Laura Mixen's, I suppose. (It isn't that ultras of all stripes can't be aggressive -- they can -- that makes me doubt her credentials; it's some of the targets upon whom she chooses to vent.)


EDIT: From Laura Mixen's report:

You should read the flaming posts and reasons RequiresHate flamed them. Mostly for not being liberal enough (and the requirements for that seem to be pretty high on his/hers list) and stuff like that. I tend to label them by the content of posts and what they propagate. Vox Day seems to attack people for being parts of other race, culture, gender, etc. RequiresHate tends to flame because according to his/hers opinion, they weren't liberal or something enough. If Vox Day is a Rabid Puppy, RequiresHate is a SJW in the most derogatory sense of the term. I didn't read entity of Mixon's report, only excerpts that I found of interest and some other discussions online so I could be wrong, but that's the feeling I got from them. Vox Day flames you for not falling under what he finds appropriate as a conservative. RequiresHate not falling under what he/she finds appropriate as a liberal. That is the sense in which I use the words left and right. I am aware that RH flames people of all orientations, races, and genders, and that when looked at closely, the people tend to belong to exactly the groups he/she claims to defend. I'm just going by the content of respective flames.

 

[Ursa major]

Again, I don't think we need take RH at face value regarding the excuses for the attacks, just note the targets. Why pick on the people she does -- women, PoCs, the disabled -- when there must be plenty of PoPs (People of Privilege) to pick on?

Perhaps I'm being unfair to Vox -- is that even possible? -- but wouldn't RH's targets be ones that would tend to attract his attention (if not necessarily for the same stated reasons)?

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

Again, I don't think we need take RH at face value regarding the excuses for the attacks, just note the targets. Why pick on the people she does -- women, PoCs, the disabled -- when there must be plenty of PoPs (People of Privilege) to pick on?

Perhaps I'm being unfair to Vox -- is that even possible? -- but wouldn't RH's targets be ones that would attract his attention (if not necessarily for the same stated reasons)?

I don't know really. Maybe he/she is, but the bigger issue there is really how he/she portrays the internet persona. It tends to taint by association.

It is always possible it is one of the cases "you aren't as liberal as I am so you aren't liberal at all and since you belong to *insert group*, I'm going to be even worse towards you because I think you should live this way and you aren't". It wouldn't be the first such case. Just look at some feminist groups who attack women who don't fall under what they believe is the right way for a woman to act and speak. In personal experience, some extreme "feminists" I've met were much more rude towards me and other women who weren't acting as they thought it right than towards men. Disclaimer: Not saying all feminists are like that before someone tears me a new one!

If you go by some logic we'd have about attacking the actual opposition on views, maybe. But who knows what goes on in such heads? It might all just be a big act from both of them to garner attention. They are trolls after all. Or it might be that they are harder on those who should lead a certain lifestyle instead of those who oppose it. It depends on how they think about things they propagate. If they think that promotion by arguing the opposition is the way, then they would do as you say. If they think that the way towards what they think is right is by making everyone who falls under a certain group act in a certain way, then they would go after people of that group who might have more similar beliefs and who don't act in the "right way" despite propagating protection of such people or something. Not sure if my incoherent ramblings are making any sense, but I've encountered both such types and I see how RH could fall under that.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Nope, he's totes been taken out of context. The itchy and burny VD is now claiming he was taken out of context and isn't really a racist, so someone got the bright idea to quote him for a few paragraphs. Yeah, doesn't make it better. Makes it a lot worse. Context is king.

This is what I meant earlier by referring to the differences in culture across the pond. In the USA, I presume that sort of blog post would be protected as "Free Speech". In the UK, it may actually be illegal.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

And for UK "publishing" it only has to be made generally available in UK, i.e. a printed copy in someone's suitcase in a London Hotel doesn't count, but visible on a Web Browser in UK does count.

This is why some civil cases are brought to court in UK. It's quite different from US attempts to apply US law extra-territorially.

 

[J-Sun]

Again, I don't think we need take RH at face value regarding the excuses for the attacks, just note the targets. Why pick on the people she does -- women, PoCs, the disabled -- when there must be plenty of PoPs (People of Privilege) to pick on?

But you're apparently a sensible person so maybe you're not really getting into the radical mentality. To use MWagner's example, it's like saying Robespierre must have been a royalist - he couldn't be a revolutionary and be chopping off revolutionary heads.

But why do people discuss these people (such as a blog which devotes itself to posting misogynistic things - apparently to make sure they achieve the widest currency possible - except that this isn't misogynistic, but racist)? I'm very interested in a lot of this, but people like VD and RH do not interest me at all. There is no reasoning with them, there is no reasoning with most or all their fans, so why discuss them at all? Ignore them and they (in a mass media sense) don't exist. Nobody with a shred of sense will be "corrupted" by their cogent and reasonable arguments. It's the mentality of the guy FH linked to: "I’ve taken the liberty of bolding the especially egregious bits" - oh, thank you, because I wasn't capable of determining what was egregious for myself and would have missed it and thought VD was an okay guy with good points. But your wise bolding saved me. Thank you so much.

(I'm sympathetic to many (most?) left-wing social causes but it is this sort of patronizing smugness that drives right-wingers, especially, up a wall and I'm sympathetic to that, too.)

BTW, FH, I really find linking to VD crap from a couple of years ago to be sort of irrelevant here. We all know (or can determine for ourselves) what he is and really only the RP slate would be relevant here. I'm much more interested in the Martins and Correias and Torgersens who might actually have non-"internet theater" points of view and can discuss them semi-reasonably. This thread and Martin and Correia had exchanged ideas and reached a level of calmness and some actual literature had even been discussed, so we need another off-topic delayed VD bomb to get folks riled up again?

 

[J-Sun]

This is what I meant earlier by referring to the differences in culture across the pond. In the USA, I presume that sort of blog post would be protected as "Free Speech". In the UK, it may actually be illegal.

Actually, I have to address this, though (thanks, FH ). I believe he has called for violence or something or said things promoting antagonistic action but, as offensive as that post is, I find it appalling that anything in it could possibly be found illegal. Calling someone not-as-human-as-me and half-savage and on and on is vulgar (among other words) - but... illegal?

But, as I say, I know things are very different in the EU area.

And, incidentally, why is that Jemisin gets a free pass? I find her comments also objectionable. There is no one who does not "live on [land that] was stolen from hundreds of other nations and peoples". Americans do not have a special claim in that regard. But see the kafkatrap being laid? Guilt, guilt! And the "10 percent" - I won't even go into that, but that, again, is where insufficiently liberal heads will roll because no dissent will be tolerated. There must be 0%. Everyone is guilty, all must conform or no one is safe!

I find that just as dangerous, in its way, as VD.

But, as I say, off-topic, IMO.

 

[soulsinging]

Wow! I am stunned that this type of bigotry and hatred still exists especially in the literary world. I really must live a sheltered existance, because I thought this type of stuff was consigned to the history books.

Man, where do you live? Is there room for me to move there? It's depressingly common over here in the USA.

This is what I meant earlier by referring to the differences in culture across the pond. In the USA, I presume that sort of blog post would be protected as "Free Speech". In the UK, it may actually be illegal.

As much as the guy disgusts me, there's no way I would be ok with him facing legal consequences for it. But... I am American. I never would have guessed cultural norms were so far apart on that one. Interesting!

 

[Anushka Mokosh]

@Brian Turner I don't think he is in the illegal territory. This would be highly frowned upon, but in majority of EU last from what I remember about our legislation in Croatia being changed to reflect that, you'd have to prove intent on the side of the poster of wanting to spread such beliefs on other people in order to establish a dominance of one group over another and/or have it constitute as hate speech under EU guidelines which I don't think it would manage to qualify. At most, she could sue for libel and then she'd have to prove his intent of malice towards her which she'd likely fail at.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I have been a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender since I first saw my first episodes. When I found out that they were making a sequel (Legend of Korra) I was overjoyed. When I saw the initial stills and press releases I wasn't that impressed with the art or the direction they seemed to be taking the setting (from essentially fantasy to the roaring '20s in New York City). So I let the series slide by without much notice. When this Hugo thing blew up I came across the rather nasty threats of violence from JCW about the creators of these two series for the audacity of including a same-sex relationship in the later Korra series. This sparked my interest again so I borrowed collections from friends and set to work watching the Legend of Korra.

What an utterly spectacular ride. Utterly blown away. If you're any kind of a fan of anime at all and you haven't checked this out, go check it out. It's simply amazing from start to finish. Strong, complex, compelling, and well-rounded female characters that cover the spectrum of human decency to depravity. Everything you could hope for in a drama. Only animated. With elemental magic. And kung fu.

Anyway, I don't want to spoil anything, but the specific issues that the Sad Pup crowd have with this show are exactly the kind of things that makes it such compelling watching. If you like good storytelling, check it out. The show ends with a positive portrayal of a same-sex couple basically walking off into the sunset. Again, don't want to spoil things, but the words of the creators on the hows and whys are worth the reading. Bryan Konietzko and Mike Dimartino.

Really inspiring stuff. Sorry, I'm all sappy now because I just finished watching the series finale maybe 20 minutes ago. Can't wait for another series.

ETA: Connie Willis on why she's refusing to be a presenter this year.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I don't think he is in the illegal territory. This would be highly frowned upon, but in majority of EU last from what I remember about our legislation in Croatia being changed to reflect that, you'd have to prove intent on the side of the poster of wanting to spread such beliefs on other people in order to establish a dominance of one group over another and/or have it constitute as hate speech under EU guidelines which I don't think it would manage to qualify.

You're probably right, but if this occurred in the UK it could be still reportable. Whether it's actionable or not is another thing, but if so it would be a criminal matter, not a civil matter for an individual to chase up:
http://report-it.org.uk/what_is_hate_crime

All hate crimes and incidents should be reported, whether you have been a victim, a witness or you are reporting on behalf of someone else.

These incidents may include verbal abuse, physical assault, domestic abuse, harassment and damage to property.

If a person is bullied as a result of their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity, this is also dealt with either as a hate crime or non-crime hate incident. Bullying could include name-calling, being spat at or kicked, or having your things taken or damaged.

as offensive as that post is, I find it appalling that anything in it could possibly be found illegal

As much as the guy disgusts me, there's no way I would be ok with him facing legal consequences for it.

And this is what I mean by the difference in attitudes between the US and Europe. Whenever the fight against inequality comes up online, it often feels that American socio-politics is projected upon everyone else - especially when they imagine that American tolerance for intolerance is shared across the Western world. A point I've tried to raise previously in this discussion.

 

[J-Sun]

And this is what I mean by the difference in attitudes between the US and Europe. Whenever the fight against inequality comes up online, it often feels that American socio-politics is projected upon everyone else - especially when they imagine that American tolerance for intolerance is shared across the Western world. A point I've tried to raise previously in this discussion.

Well, that's also how it feels to Americans - that UK/EU socio-politics is being projected on the US. And that's the way it has to be - everyone is going to bring their viewpoints to the table and that's going to be discordant with the majority or totality of the rest of the viewpoints. I guess I'm not sure I'm following what the point of your point is, so to speak. UK/EU governments are much quicker to criminalize speech than Americans. That was shocking to me when I came to this board (which is odd because we had a full contingent of UK, Australian, NZ folks on the Buffy boards back in the day and it never seem to come up amongst us loons) but it's not new to me anymore (though still shocking). I mean, what would you have Americans do, I guess is what I must be asking.

 

[Toby Frost]

Torgersen’s blog post “Flaming Rage Nozzles of Tolerance” says a lot of interesting things. It is a fairly good summary of the pathology of the radical “left”. All through this “kerfuffle” (good term) I’ve been trying to work out what it reminded me of. It’s a quote from The Road to Wigan Pier, written over 70 years ago: “Sometimes when I listen to these people talking, and still more when I read their books, I get the impression that, to them, the whole Socialist movement is no more than a kind of exciting heresy-hunt… 'Fee fi, fo, fum, I smell the blood of a right-wing deviationist!'”.

Why act like that? I’m not sure. Needless to say, this just drives away non-fanatics (of both majorities and minorities), the people who would benefit the most and be the best allies. But probably because this sort of pseudo-activism is easy, it entails no real responsibility and it’s exciting. That’s the wonderful thing about “punching up”. It absolves you from any requirement to behave like a decent person. The evil slaves are thrown into the arena, the righteous crowd cheers as the lions are released, and the fun can begin.


However, and this is a very big however, none of this makes it right to effectively cheat the Hugos. None of it changes the fact that, even if it doesn’t technically break the rules, this is a childish, crooked, toys-out-of-pram thing to do. Was it a fair tactic? I don't think so. Will it make SFF better in the long run? I very much doubt it. If anything, it will make people like myself, who are neither entrenched in fan culture nor political activists, much less likely to get involved. It makes the prize – both in terms of literally winning a Hugo and SFF as a worthy genre – much less worth having.

 

[MWagner]

“Sometimes when I listen to these people talking, and still more when I read their books, I get the impression that, to them, the whole Socialist movement is no more than a kind of exciting heresy-hunt… 'Fee fi, fo, fum, I smell the blood of a right-wing deviationist!'”.

Why act like that?

For the same reason some people strike religious postures - to luxuriate in the balm of rectitude among other true believers. By proving your dedication to the cause, you elevate yourself above the unclean. The trick is you have to keep proving your dedication to purity again and again, because someone else can elevate themselves even more by discerning a blemish in your character and having you cast out of the light. The recently coined term 'halo-polishing' is quite apt.

It's interesting to compare this controversy with the one last year, where a presenter stepped down before the awards because of a twitter campaign warning that he might say something offensive. Besides Neil Gaiman, did anyone else come to Jonathan Ross' defence? Did any other speakers refuse to attend or give awards to protest the attacks on Ross? It seems the organizers of Worldcon did apologize after he stepped down, but maybe they could have denounced the hysterical fans who accused Ross of future-crime, instead of shrugging off their actions as part of the 'recent debate in fandom.'

To me, that's the real issue. There will always be fanatics and zealots. But they only thrive because their erstwhile allies in simplistic wars of ideology refuse to denounce people on their side out of fear of cheering their enemies. That kind of thinking betrays a weakness of character, and in my opinion undermines much of the legitimacy of a cause. That goes for left and right.

 

[Nerds_feather]

And, incidentally, why is that Jemisin gets a free pass? I find her comments also objectionable. There is no one who does not "live on [land that] was stolen from hundreds of other nations and peoples". Americans do not have a special claim in that regard. But see the kafkatrap being laid? Guilt, guilt! And the "10 percent" - I won't even go into that, but that, again, is where insufficiently liberal heads will roll because no dissent will be tolerated. There must be 0%. Everyone is guilty, all must conform or no one is safe!

Whether you agree with her characterizations of race and race relations in the US, she was not--in any way, shape or form--saying the US has a "special claim in that regard." She claimed that Americans, in her opinion, will never admit that they "live on [land that] was stolen from hundreds of other nations and peoples." And she was contrasting this negatively with what she sees as the prevalent Australian attitude. The contrast she draws is also, crucially, predicated on the assumption that both countries have similar histories in this regard (which they do).

Here's the full quote:

Now. Before you tar and feather me, let me tell you something else I’ve come to understand in the past three days. Australia may not be the safest place for someone who looks like me… but it’s trying to become safer. And Australia may have classified the peoples of the Koorie and other nations as “fauna” until very recently, but Australia has also made tremendous strides lately in rectifying this error. I’ve listened in fascination to the Acknowledgements of Country made at nearly every public event I’ve attended since I’ve been here. I’ve marveled that indigenous languages are offered as courses for study at some local universities. I am awed that you don’t shove all of your indigenous history into a single museum, where it’s easy for people not of that culture to avoid or ignore, because that’s what happens in the US. So as horrified as I am by the nastier details of Australian history… I am also heartened, astonished, inspired, by the Australian present. You’ve still got a long way to go before Reconciliation is complete, but then again, you’ve started down that path. You’re trying.

I want you to understand: what you’ve done? It will never happen in my country. Not in my lifetime, at least. Right now American politicians are doing their best to roll back voting rights won during our own Civil Rights movement. They are putting in place educational “reforms” which disproportionately have a negative impact on black and brown and poor white kids, and will essentially help to solidify a permanent underclass. Right now there are laws in places like Florida and Texas which are intended to make it essentially legal for white people to just shoot people like me, without consequence, as long as they feel threatened by my presence. So: admitting that the land we live on was stolen from hundreds of other nations and peoples? Acknowledging that the prosperity the United States enjoys was bought with blood? That’s a pipe dream.

I want you to understand that what you’ve done makes me want to weep with envy, and bitterness, and hope.

[Full text: http://nkjemisin.com/2013/06/continuum-goh-speech/#sthash.d0FxAimz.dpuf]

Now, keep in mind I'm not saying I agree with her. Actually when I first read the speech, this part surprised me, because in the places I've lived, pretty much everyone is aware of what the US and British colonial governments did to the Native Americans, and pretty much everyone agrees that it's an utterly shameful episode in our history. So in my experience, for all the lingering racial problems in this country, coming to terms with that doesn't seem to be the issue she makes it out to be. And I also think her contrast with Australia is reductionist on both counts--clearly so, I'd argue, given the concentration camps Australia has set up for asylum seekers.

But I'm also not seeing what the basis for all the right-wing fury is.

 

[Nerds_feather]

It’s a quote from The Road to Wigan Pier, written over 70 years ago: “Sometimes when I listen to these people talking, and still more when I read their books, I get the impression that, to them, the whole Socialist movement is no more than a kind of exciting heresy-hunt… 'Fee fi, fo, fum, I smell the blood of a right-wing deviationist!'”.

Why act like that? I’m not sure. Needless to say, this just drives away non-fanatics (of both majorities and minorities), the people who would benefit the most and be the best allies. But probably because this sort of pseudo-activism is easy, it entails no real responsibility and it’s exciting. That’s the wonderful thing about “punching up”. It absolves you from any requirement to behave like a decent person. The evil slaves are thrown into the arena, the righteous crowd cheers as the lions are released, and the fun can begin.

There's an old truism that, while the knives of the right are pointed out, the knives of the left are pointed in. Bit of a reduction there, given that right-wing movements can and do initiate their own "purity tests," purges and inquisitions. But in SF/F, at least, it seems like the hard right is more concerned with "attacking the out-group" and the hard left is obsessed with "the purity of the in-group."

Arguably the main victims of both are members of the "soft left" (i.e. liberals).

 

[Nerds_feather]

Two S/RP nominated authors, Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet, have just withdrawn their nominated works.