The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Dave]

I guess this is well off topic, but you do know they still plan to hold a World Cup in Qatar?

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, but late in the year: 21 November – 18 December 2022.


(It isn't really off-topic: the decision to hold the World Cup in Qatar has been widely slated.... )

 

[Brian G Turner]

I guess this is well off topic, but you do know they still plan to hold a World Cup in Qatar?

We've no chance of winning, until there's one in Scandinavia.

 

[MWagner]

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.

I created a thread in World Affairs to follow up on this.

 

[Nerds_feather]

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.

Absolutely.

The other part of the equation is that, over time, the US public has shifted toward support for marriage equality, and most of those gay marriage bans are either out or on the way out now. That speaks to the advantage of the "soft left," but only over time and with a lot of patience. There are hopefully parallels to the Hugos in there as well, but we'll have to see. As it stands I don't have confidence in the WSFS to make changes that would simultaneously limit the influence of slates and make the Hugos more inclusive and open to everyone. 4/6 is the low-hanging fruit--it rocks the fewest boats but I don't it will be all that effective--and it wouldn't take effect until 2017.

Also, I do think that this situation adds more fuel to the argument that WorldCon should grow to be more international and less US-centric. I'd love for every other WorldCon to be held outside the US; as it stands, right now the ratio is more 4:1.

 

[Nerds_feather]

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.

You did realize I was arguing against a monolithic view of S/RP, right?

 

[JaimeRetief]

You did realize I was arguing against a monolithic view of S/RP, right?

And I had the strong feeling that you were seeing them as two tentacles of the same octopus.

lets stop with this political discussion as Brian told us to do, I would rather go back to plotting the permanent move of Worldcon to Europe or Asia and the various changes of the voting and nomination systems.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Yes, but late in the year: 21 November – 18 December 2022.


(It isn't really off-topic: the decision to hold the World Cup in Qatar has been widely slated.... )

Ok, this is abit off topic again, but FIFA's massive corruption must be mentioned, directly.As often as bloody possible.

 

[Nerds_feather]

And I had the strong feeling that you were seeing them as two tentacles of the same octopus.

And what I actually wrote made it quite clear that I saw their motivations as distinct--a position I've made several times in the course of this conversation. For example--and bolded for clarity's sake:

Should add that I think don't the "rabid" and "sad" contingents are reducible to one another. RP is a personal project dressed up as an ideological one. SP is an ideological project dressed up as...well, whatever it is they claim the project to be about on any given day--I can't keep track of them all, to be perfectly honest.

To continue the thread on what SP is "really about," I don't think it's an attempt to promote "white dudes" over others. (RP is another story--its architects have their own agenda.)

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.

Now, be that as it may, if you or anyone else were to say that SP and RP are wholly separate and separable from one another, then you or that someone else would be objectively wrong. RP is an offshoot of SP. They took the SP slate and added a few more noms for people and things associated with VD's publishing imprint--yet the lists are still 80+% correlated. And SP and RP's organizers and followers made their common cause clear from the get-go (though some SPs have backtracked as the toxicity of RP's organizers has become clear).

So they are not the same, but they clearly entered into this as allies. For all intents and purposes, allies they remain.

 

[JaimeRetief]

Now, be that as it may, if you or anyone else were to say that SP and RP are wholly separate and separable from one another, then you or that someone else would be objectively wrong. RP is an offshoot of SP. They took the SP slate and added a few more noms for people and things associated with VD's publishing imprint--yet the lists are still 80+% correlated. And SP and RP's organizers and followers made their common cause clear from the get-go (though some SPs have backtracked as the toxicity of RP's organizers has become clear).

So they are not the same, but they clearly entered into this as allies. For all intents and purposes, allies they remain.

But that is like saying that Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the USSR were the same monolithic entity because they were against western liberal values and had totalitarian governments.

 

[Nerds_feather]

But that is like saying that Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and the USSR were the same monolithic entity because they were against western liberal values and had totalitarian governments.

No, it's like saying that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy formed a political and military alliance--which they did.

 

[JaimeRetief]

No, it's like saying that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy formed a political and military alliance--which they did.

Or like saying that Communists would not stumble upon unsurmountable practical and ideological differences and end up confrontin g each-other

 

[Nerds_feather]

Or like saying that Communists would not stumble upon unsurmountable practical and ideological differences and end up confrontin g each-other

All alliances can fracture, but it hasn't happened yet and there's no indication it's in the works either. And that does not address the points that:

• RP is an offshoot of SP (it is)
• The RP slate is 80+% correlated with the SP slate (it is)
• RP and SP organizers and backers have publicly made common cause (they did)
• RP and SP organizers and backers continue to publicly make common cause (they are)

It's not inconceivable that they would break, but I fail to see how that's fait accompli or even more likely than not. China broke with the USSR for ideological and power political reasons, i.e. because they didn't like Kruschev's repudiation of Stalinism and they didn't like the USSR's imperial stance in Asia. Tito broke with the USSR because he didn't want Soviet tanks to cross the Yugoslav borders, and didn't like the COMINFORM telling him what to do. Since neither SP or RP possess tanks, client states or appear to have any interest in telling each other what to do, the power political elements of that analogy are not useful.

An ideological rupture? Perhaps, but if BT and LC haven't repudiated VD or JCW yet, it's hard to see how or why that would occur. No, the analogy of a military-political alliance between entities possessing overlapping-but-distinct ideologies and interests does really seem more appropriate here.

...and as long as they perceive themselves to be "winning," then there's really no reason to expect a split.

 

[JaimeRetief]

All alliances can fracture, but it hasn't happened yet and there's no indication it's in the works either. And that does not address the points that:

• RP is an offshoot of SP (it is)
• The RP slate is 80+% correlated with the SP slate (it is)
• RP and SP organizers and backers have publicly made common cause (they did)
• RP and SP organizers and backers continue to publicly make common cause (they are)

It's not inconceivable that they would break, but I fail to see how that's fait accompli or even more likely than not. China broke with the USSR for ideological and power political reasons, i.e. because they didn't like Kruschev's repudiation of Stalinism and they didn't like the USSR's imperial stance in Asia. Tito broke with the USSR because he didn't want Soviet tanks to cross the Yugoslav borders, and didn't like the COMINFORM telling him what to do. Since neither SP or RP possess tanks, client states or appear to have any interest in telling each other what to do, the power political elements of that analogy are not useful.

An ideological rupture? Perhaps, but if BT and LC haven't repudiated VD or JCW yet, it's hard to see how or why that would occur. No, the analogy of a military-political alliance between entities possessing overlapping-but-distinct ideologies and interests does really seem more appropriate here.

...and as long as they perceive themselves to be "winning," then there's really no reason to expect a split.

Tito is a pretty peculiar case, however he is far from the only communist to have disagreements with and try to circumvent and ignore the dictates of Moscow, a number of European communists, from Stalinists to moderates, did the same for a variety of reasons, and Mao did the same.
The US in the 50s thought that communism was a monolithic organization and ideology, however that was very far from the truth,

After googleing that alleged insult I found a blog post where Vox Day was berating Torgersen for apologising for example.
As to SP not attacking RP on the basis of Day's comments, why should they, it is not like Day is attacking them.
By the same logic Trotsky would hae been obliged to apologise for Stalin.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Tito is a pretty peculiar case, however he is far from the only communist to have disagreements with and try to circumvent and ignore the dictates of Moscow, a number of European communists, from Stalinists to moderates, did the same for a variety of reasons, and Mao did the same.
The US in the 50s thought that communism was a monolithic organization and ideology, however that was very far from the truth,

After googleing that alleged insult I found a blog post where Vox Day was berating Torgersen for apologising for example.
As to SP not attacking RP on the basis of Day's comments, why should they, it is not like Day is attacking them.
By the same logic Trotsky would hae been obliged to apologise for Stalin.

I could go on about how misplaced the Trotsky/Stalin analogy is, but since this isn't actually a response to what I wrote, I don't see much reason to.

 

[JaimeRetief]

I could go on about how misplaced the Trotsky/Stalin analogy is, but since this isn't actually a response to what I wrote, I don't see much reason to.

No it isn't, in the eyes of the USA there was little difference between the various subtypes of communism and between the communist leaders themselves, as far as the US and its allies were concerned they were all one monolithic organization working from Moscow to take over the world.

 

[Hex]

I don't think it's reasonable to make such sweeping assertions about what we do and do not know.

 

[K. Riehl]

In the interest of providing some historical background, controversy at SF conventions has occurred ever since the first one held in 1939.

A quote from a fanzine:
"This is a one-shot Mimeographed fanzine produced as a result of six SF fans being barred from entering the FIRST WORLD SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION, held in New York City on July 2, 1939. This was put together by LESLIE PERRI and the FUTURIAN SOCIETY of New York. The exiles (as noted in this zine) were FREDERIK POHL, CYRIL KORNBLUTH, DONALD A. WOLLHEIM, JACK GILLESPIE, JOHN B. MICHEL and ROBERT W. LOWNDES, who were barred from the convention by convention organizers JAMES V. TAURASI, SAM MOSKOWITZ and WILLIAM SYKORA. There are two pages of text in this publication describing what happened and vowing to "FINISH YOU IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WHICH CANNOT EXIST UNTIL YOUR STRONG ARM TACTICS ARE DISCLOSED TO WORLD SCIENCE FICTION," and five full page drawings by Leslie Perri of the people involved, not including the cover lettering"

Some pretty influential people were not allowed in. At the time I believe the Futurians were responsible for writing,editing or producing something like 50% of all Science Fiction published in the US.

The title of the fanzine? In Your Teeth Gentleman

 

[Ray McCarthy]

FREDERIK POHL, CYRIL KORNBLUTH

Those were top writers, on my shelves here today.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

All I have to say is Chuck Tingle. He's killing it.