The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

But RP is also, quite clearly I think, being used as a tool to promote two certain someones and the small press imprint one of those certain someones owns and which publishes the other certain someone. I often wonder, for all the vitriol and cartoonish extremism, if old fashioned personal gain isn't the end goal for those certain someones.

SP is different. Despite being less extreme and taking pains to at least try to appear to be something other than a right-wing political cause (some of the time at least), SP strikes me as more sincere in its politics than RP. It's an attempt to import the American "culture war" model from outside SF/F; everything else is, I think, window dressing.
 
But RP is also, quite clearly I think, being used as a tool to promote two certain someones and the small press imprint one of those certain someones owns and which publishes the other certain someone. I often wonder, for all the vitriol and cartoonish extremism, if old fashioned personal gain isn't the end goal for those certain someones.

SP is different. Despite being less extreme and taking pains to at least try to appear to be something other than a right-wing political cause (some of the time at least), SP strikes me as more sincere in its politics than RP. It's an attempt to import the American "culture war" model from outside SF/F; everything else is, I think, window dressing.
Here is some advice from someone who has studied politics and propaganda techniques, never ever under any circumstances define the "enemy" too broadly or put all of the enemy under one label and think they are monolithic.
 
After reading halfway through a Nixon biography and considering the fact that the Republicans have a large number of candidates, while the Democrats only have Hillary I find that a bit hard to believe.

From what I have read the Republicans are split between big and small government conservatives and that there are large differences in income among individual members.
Furthermore there are the differences between paleo- and neocons, and the neocons themselves vary quite a bit, Fukuiama for example is quite a bit more moderate than some of his peers, Kissinger is quite a bit more moderate than quite a few of the Hawks, and libertarians.
Similarly I have read that the tea party is quite factionary.

Back on track, can we perhaps get rid of the US political fallout by moving Worldcon to Europe or Canada?

Believe it or not, he was very accurate with that post. Income is irrelevant, as income differences exist across the political spectrum in the US. Suffice to say, the right has far more organization and mobilization. Yes, there are factions and differences, but they close ranks when the chips are down and US liberals do not. I'm not going to get too far into it because this isn't the thread (there is a political board here if anyone cares enough to want to discuss this further) for it, but I can assure you he is correct.

I stand by what I said earlier and I feel like this post and MWagner's kind of confirm my point... that if you don't live in the US then the level of influence the right has in American politics is probably very hard to wrap one's head around. It probably seems like the "PC" crowd is really overreacting to the SP/RP thing, but from where we sit in the US these guys are no joke and are VERY effective at mobilizing concentrated support. If the left was as organized, you'd already have had the "women puppies" movement nominating slates, but we don't because left does not operate like that here. Instead, you get a few vaguely feminist texts getting recognition and THEN these SP types lose their heads and do... well, exactly what they did to the Hugos.

Yes, the left may sound histrionic, but it's because if you lived in the US you'd have seen this story before... right-wingers out of nowhere take on an issue (eg. gay marriage) and before anyone can blink they pass gay marriage bans in 30 of 50 states while the liberals are running in circles trying to agree on enough to mount a real opposition. Same thing here... the Hugos were going along, these right-wing nuts decided there was a problem with them, and before anyone realized how serious they were, they demolished an entire awards show and now the left is trying to figure out how to check their influence without entirely silencing the voice. Because we do believe in freedom of speech, but also that there are consequences to speech and that the speech of bullies with outsized influence should not drown out all other voices solely by better organization and more aggressive tactics.
 
That is part of the point.
Worldcon is misnamed. Like US "World Series".
It's
a) Western
b) English speaking
c) American
Ok I've tried to play nice, but if anyone starts in on baseball we're going to have problems! It's the only religion I have :ROFLMAO:

Nothing to do with the topic, but the US world series at this point pretty much is a world series. There are so many latin players and an increasing number of Asian players that I think it's more international than any sport other than maybe European soccer. They're even planning an international draft so it truly is becoming a world series that features all of the world's best players.

Ok, my PSA is done :whistle:
 
Believe it or not, he was very accurate with that post. Income is irrelevant, as income differences exist across the political spectrum in the US. Suffice to say, the right has far more organization and mobilization. Yes, there are factions and differences, but they close ranks when the chips are down and US liberals do not. I'm not going to get too far into it because this isn't the thread (there is a political board here if anyone cares enough to want to discuss this further) for it, but I can assure you he is correct.

I stand by what I said earlier and I feel like this post and MWagner's kind of confirm my point... that if you don't live in the US then the level of influence the right has in American politics is probably very hard to wrap one's head around. It probably seems like the "PC" crowd is really overreacting to the SP/RP thing, but from where we sit in the US these guys are no joke and are VERY effective at mobilizing concentrated support. If the left was as organized, you'd already have had the "women puppies" movement nominating slates, but we don't because left does not operate like that here. Instead, you get a few vaguely feminist texts getting recognition and THEN these SP types lose their heads and do... well, exactly what they did to the Hugos.

Yes, the left may sound histrionic, but it's because if you lived in the US you'd have seen this story before... right-wingers out of nowhere take on an issue (eg. gay marriage) and before anyone can blink they pass gay marriage bans in 30 of 50 states while the liberals are running in circles trying to agree on enough to mount a real opposition. Same thing here... the Hugos were going along, these right-wing nuts decided there was a problem with them, and before anyone realized how serious they were, they demolished an entire awards show and now the left is trying to figure out how to check their influence without entirely silencing the voice. Because we do believe in freedom of speech, but also that there are consequences to speech and that the speech of bullies with outsized influence should not drown out all other voices solely by better organization and more aggressive tactics.
I am sorry, but I must take the word of a number of reputable and moderate political publications, as well as that of political scientists and biographers over yours, I do not think that you are an objective observer, since you mentioned that you've had negative experiences with the right.
However I must agree that gerrymandering and the influence of so called super PACs is a major blight.
 
Ok I've tried to play nice, but if anyone starts in on baseball we're going to have problems! It's the only religion I have :ROFLMAO:

Nothing to do with the topic, but the US world series at this point pretty much is a world series. There are so many latin players and an increasing number of Asian players that I think it's more international than any sport other than maybe European soccer. They're even planning an international draft so it truly is becoming a world series that features all of the world's best players.

Ok, my PSA is done :whistle:
Baseball is also quite popular in some Latin American countries, like Cuba.
Kissinger has praised it as the most intelligent game, I am sad that there is very little interest in it in Europe.
 
Here is some advice from someone who has studied politics and propaganda techniques, never ever under any circumstances define the "enemy" too broadly or put all of the enemy under one label and think they are monolithic.
I just re-read his post like 3 times and don't see him use the word enemy once, let alone try to define it? Did I miss something?
 
Surely none of us are objective observers? You have your opinion and soulsinging has his. The trick is to talk about the issues (which he did) and not about the people in the thread discussing those issues. No one says you have to agree, but I'd suggest that having had experiences with the American right might count as a qualification in talking about them.

EDIT -- Gosh you guys post fast.
 
Baseball is also quite popular in some Latin American countries, like Cuba.
Kissinger has praised it as the most intelligent game, I am sad that there is very little interest in it in Europe.
As a guy rooting for a team featuring Iglesias and Cespedes, two of the best Cuban ballplayers in the world, I'm well aware of the growing support for baseball in latin America. I think my Detroit Tigers at one point had half its roster from Venezuela!
It's a tough sport to get off the ground... there's a lot of expensive equipment, and Europe's weather is as bad as most of North America's so there is limited time in the year for a sport like baseball.
 
I am sorry, but I must take the word of a number of reputable and moderate political publications, as well as that of political scientists and biographers over yours, I do not think that you are an objective observer, since you mentioned that you've had negative experiences with the right.
However I must agree that gerrymandering and the influence of so called super PACs is a major blight.
And I will take the word of me and the several hundred thousand other Americans that I know and have lived with for several decades, including a number of reputable and moderate ACTUAL politicians, professors, journalists, etc., over a European who has only studied us in books. My negative experiences with the right are not personal, they are observable. I studied this at university myself. Reading a Nixon biography and worshipping Kissinger doesn't give you insight into the modern American conservative movement. Those guys are 40 years out of date and Nixon would be HATED by the US conservatives today (he appeased China, started the EPA, etc.). I don't doubt you're a smart cookie that's read plenty of books on the subject, but you don't learn to fish from a book, you learn to fish from someone that knows how to fish. Read all you want, I LIVE the US political experience, so I will appreciate it if you would refrain from endlessly telling me you know my country and people so much better than I do. I do not come here and presume to tell you what it is to be Bulgarian and how your nation's people behave and think.

My "negative experiences" were observing them steal elections, the gay marriage ban, etc. It's observation of political motives and behaviors. I'm not ranting because some conservative stole my lunch money once.

And FTR, let me point out the obvious... I may not be totally objective (neither are you, clearly) and I am not an observer. YOU are an observer, in that you have no experience here. You observe, you read books, and you think it makes you an expert on lives you never lived. I do not observe this country, I live it. Those people whose books you've read? They also LIVED over here with their subjects. They EARNED their experience and views. You soaking them up like a sponge does not give you a fraction of their insight and wisdom, despite your claims to have equal footing to them and higher footing to me and the dozen other American posters here who have repeatedly pointed out why you are wrong and your asserted knowledge of the US right-wing is glaringly inaccurate.

I've had lunch with US Senators in the dining hall at the US Capitol building (maybe you recognize it from the movies), worked on judicial campaigns, spoken on television about the Tea Party movement when it was just a grass roots thing and spoke personally with FBI agents abotu multiple issues. I listened to US Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Roberts that came to my law school to talk. I wrote about the Taliban and its dangers before 9/11 and I researched the American Christian political movement before Dubya made it cool. You can take those books you read halfway around the world and do whatever you want with them, because I'm the one living and making the histories that you only read about in biographies sir.
 
Last edited:
I just re-read his post like 3 times and don't see him use the word enemy once, let alone try to define it? Did I miss something?
Yes, the word enemy is not used, but the mindset is IMO apparent.
That was just some advice, he can take it or leave it as he so chooses.
And I will take the word of me and the several hundred thousand other Americans that I know and have lived with for several decades, including a number of reputable and moderate ACTUAL politicians, professors, journalists, etc., over a European who has only studied us in books. My negative experiences with the right are not personal, they are observable. I studied this at university myself. Reading a Nixon biography and worshipping Kissinger doesn't give you insight into the modern American conservative movement. Those guys are 40 years out of date and Nixon would be HATED by the US conservatives today (he appeased China, started the EPA, etc.). I don't doubt you're a smart cookie that's read plenty of books on the subject, but you don't learn to fish from a book, you learn to fish from someone that knows how to fish. Read all you want, I LIVE the US political experience, so I will appreciate it if you would refrain from endlessly telling me you know my country and people so much better than I do. I do not come here and presume to tell you what it is to be Bulgarian and how your nation's people behave and think.
My "negative experiences" were observing them steal elections, the gay marriage ban, etc. It's observation of political motives and behaviors. I'm not ranting because some conservative stole my lunch money once.
And FTR, let me point out the obvious... I may not be totally objective (neither are you, clearly) and I am not an observer. YOU are an observer, in that you have no experience here. You observe, you read books, and you think it makes you an expert on lives you never lived. I do not observe this country, I live it. Those people whose books you've read? They also LIVED over here with their subjects. They EARNED their experience and views. You soaking them up like a sponge does not give you a fraction of their insight and wisdom, despite your claims to have equal footing to them and higher footing to me and the dozen other American posters here who have repeatedly pointed out why you are wrong and your asserted knowledge of the US right-wing is glaringly inaccurate.
I've had lunch with US Senators in the dining hall at the US Capitol building (maybe you recognize it from the movies), worked on judicial campaigns, spoken on television about the Tea Party movement when it was just a grass roots thing and spoke personally with FBI agents abotu multiple issues. I listened to US Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Roberts that came to my law school to talk. I wrote about the Taliban and its dangers before 9/11 and I researched the American Christian political movement before Dubya made it cool. You can take those books you read halfway around the world and do whatever you want with them, because I'm the one living and making the histories that you only read about in biographies sir.
I mentioned Nixon not because of his policies, but because he and his enemies were indicative of the dirty political attacks, strong partisanship, and dirty campaigning that is apparently a staple of US politics, both inside of as well as between parties.
I can of course debate this further, but since Brian already warned us to cut the US political discussion to a minimum I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

As a guy rooting for a team featuring Iglesias and Cespedes, two of the best Cuban ballplayers in the world, I'm well aware of the growing support for baseball in latin America. I think my Detroit Tigers at one point had half its roster from Venezuela!
It's a tough sport to get off the ground... there's a lot of expensive equipment, and Europe's weather is as bad as most of North America's so there is limited time in the year for a sport like baseball.
Football is not exactly an all year sport, especially if it is below -15 Celsius.
The British play cricket, that has a number of similarities to your baseball.
Japan's weather can be quite horrible from what I've heard, yet they enjoy baseball.
I do not think that it would be impossible for the sport to be practised in Europe, it just needs to be popularized.
 
Pfft! Football in the UK is rarely played at temperatures above 15 degress C. :)
You do realize that on the continent temperatures occasionally fall to below -20, the British Isles have the Gulf Stream to moderate the weather, try Central and Eastern Europe for comparison:D
 
You do realize that on the continent temperatures occasionally fall to below -20, the British Isles have the Gulf Stream to moderate the weather, try Central and Eastern Europe for comparison:D

Luxury! Compared to the Highlands of Scotland, that's tanning weather. :D
 
Luxury! Compared to the Highlands of Scotland, that's tanning weather. :D
Oh, a friend of mine lives in Edinburgh, he does complain about the weather, but his problems are primarily with the wind and rain, not with the cold and the snow.
I always thought the winters there were rather mild.
 
Edinburgh is the lowlands, though, and on the sea. I know Scotland is small, but we do have a lot of weather.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top