The Hugo Awards Kerfuffle...

[Nerds_feather]

@Fishbowl Helmet - appreciate that the USA can look a place of strange extremes to people outside of it.

Here in Europe we give lip service to the principle of "free speech". We don't truly have it, because the last time it was freely exercised, every single European city was bombed to ruins.

In the USA you don't have that history - until very recently, war and terror was always something that happened on other shores. It still mostly is.

The result is that you have a culture far more tolerant of extremes than most others would consider acceptable. Some of what is freely espoused in the USA would be a cause for arrest in many other countries.

So appreciate that much of the socio-political narrative that comes out of the USA does not easily translate. Yes, we have inequality and injustice - it just seems sometimes that the USA can do it bigger and better than everyone else.

Hence why it can be hard for others to even begin to comprehend - even empathise - with much of the downright hostility that seems to be a norm among parts of American society.

Brian,

I see where you are coming from here, but I'm not sure this is quite correct. Europe is and has been home to large, organized far-right and far-left movements consistently since 1945. The Red Army Faction, the Brigada Rossa, Movement 2 June, 17 November, the British National Party, The English Defence League, France's National Front, Vlaams Blok, the boatload of far-right racist parties winning significant numbers of parliamentary seats in nearly every EU country at present, the communist and neocommunist parties that also win significant numbers of parliamentary seats in many EU countries, etc. I would say Europe does extreme politics very well, and has never stopped doing so.

The U.S. has its own history of extreme politics (mostly but not exclusively on the far-right). But we're not talking about that--we're talking about the mainstreaming of extreme politics on social media, and their infection of previously sacrosanct or off-the-radar areas of social life. This is something new. And it's no surprise that it's happening more quickly and emphatically in the U.S.: what Americans are often best at, after all, is finding new ways to shout loudly, and new audiences to shout loudly to. But it shouldn't be confused with any peculiar predilection to extremist politics. There is no significant far-left in U.S. politics, and the far-right is probably less powerful than they make themselves appear.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Europe is and has been home to large, organized far-right and far-left movements consistently since 1945.

These are arguably closer to the American centre than the American right. Legal right-wing groups in Europe cannot legally be racist, sexist, or overtly discriminatory - otherwise they become subject to legal scrutiny and potential action.

The far right parties are basically limited to talking about immigration issues when it comes to discrimination.

Here in the UK it is illegal to promote racism. In Germany I believe it is illegal just to display the Swastika flag of the Nazi party. I don't know of any organisation in Europe can legally promote paedophilia.

We have social care and benefits payments as integral to our national systems. Doesn't that make us almost socialists?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Teresa, yes, in fact the Sad Puppies are explicitly against social justice. The Sad Puppies leaders spew some of the most vile racist, sexist, misogynistic, and homophobic bile you can find associated with the SFF community. And yes, some of them are explicitly calling for fewer rights, fewer freedoms, and less diversity, not only in the field of SFF, but in the real-world.

But isn't that their idea (no matter how skewed and repulsive) of social justice: the "deserving," by right of their gender, color, and sexual orientation, claim what is rightfully theirs, and lesser beings make do with whatever crumbs are allowed them? Surely they don't really think of what they want as injustice. They feel entitled, and the entitled always feel that they have morality -- or at least natural law -- on their side.

So if they are going to be stupid enough to label those who oppose them as "Social Justice Warriors," why should anyone shrink from the label, as though it were something to be ashamed of? Why let a term be turned into a pejorative just because a bunch of bullies choose to use it mockingly. Why shouldn't those against whom it is aimed not answer, "Yes, we are for social justice, and we are willing to fight for it."

 

[J-Sun]

Careful what you wish for... after watching what happened in Indiana here in the US, there's probably a real chance if this gets national press the LGBT movement could truly mobilize enough people to REALLY mess with the nominees next year, which the cynic in me thinks would be pretty hilarious.

It would be! That would be great (I hope). I mean, it could degenerate into ruinous polarized disaster but imagine if there's the tacit lib/lit slate that provokes the SP and RP slates that then did draw in the explicitly LGBT slate which then drew in the next and the next until, hey, everybody was involved and the World Convention awards were really representative with a greater number of votes than those given for a small hamlet's town council. And where, every year, the one that happened to win by a vote or two was different and exciting and talked about.

Yeah, probably people would end up caning others over the heads instead and it would suck. But it could be great.

He posted the first post
http://grrm.livejournal.com/417521.html

That was mostly kinda beautiful. That's how I saw fandom and the Hugos at my distance back in the day. And that's how I see reasoned and temperate expression of opinion. My only real quibble is when it comes to the line of thought started with "The Hugos belong to worldcon." Now, this is true and irrefutable in legal terms. But Worldcon is supposed to be open to all (inclusive, geddit?) and should ideally represent all SF, left, right, black, white, male, female, other, Terran, Martian, etc. So saying it belongs to Worldcon is really just kind of the same as saying it belongs to everyone and no one.

In other words, there's nothing wrong with the basic line of thought but you run the risk of pushing it to absurdity as Teresa Nielsen Hayden does:

Why are people talking about what would happen if everyone who reads SF voted in the Hugos? IMO, it's not a relevant question. The Hugos don't belong to the set of all people who read the genre; they belong to the worldcon, and the people who attend and/or support it. The set of all people who read SF can start their own award.

I'd love for her to draw a Venn diagram of that that makes any sense, short of excluding the "Worldcon" set from the "SF reader" set. How's that for an inclusive and welcoming attitude?

Like I said, I figured I'd disagree with some aspects of Martin's comments but I welcome them so far, anyway.

I would say Europe does extreme politics very well, and has never stopped doing so.

Indeed. Not to mention that we often exclude war from "US soil" yet the nation and those borders were partly created in combat, our capital was burned by our esteemed cousins , and we had a little ruckus some folks call the Civil War which gives us first-hand experience in what happens when communications break down just as WWII did for the Old World.

There is no significant far-left in U.S. politics, and the far-right is probably less powerful than they make themselves appear.

I was thinking about this the other day. It's very odd because I agree that there is essentially no left whatsoever bar special interest politicking - we have legal marijuana in some states and gay marriage in some and what have you but there's no general left at all. Nixon would be a Democrat today and his appointees made up the liberal wing of the Supreme Court recently. I think that's why some SF conservatives get even more bent out of shape about the liberalism in SF. Compared to the society at large, SF is incredibly leftist and there's virtually no right-wing except in a couple of carefully segregated markets, one of which is currently liberalizing. I think the people are someone in between (and beyond both ends), but the political arena is far right and the SF arena is far left. Weird.

Anyway - main point: I hope the LGBT and the 700 Club and everybody else get involved in the next Worldcon (peacefully) and that Martin keeps posting good stuff.

 

[J-Sun]

So if they are going to be stupid enough to label those who oppose them as "Social Justice Warriors," why should anyone shrink from the label, as though it were something to be ashamed of? Why let a term be turned into a pejorative just because a bunch of bullies choose to use it mockingly. Why not say proudly, "Yes, we are for social justice, and we are willing to fight for it."

I think it's pejorative in their minds on the "warrior" aspect - not, obviously, that "warrior" in the abstract is pejorative but they're invoking the crusading, irrational, totally unhinged aspect of some of those who promote social justice to the ironic point of social injustice. In other words, those who ignore the Voltairean "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and adopt the Rousseau-ian "force them to be free" viewpoint. But I agree that it's poorly chosen. As is the "sad puppy" thing as they seem to have given in to the misconception but they weren't initially calling themselves sad puppies - they were saying that everyone loves puppies and the "SJW"s were making puppies sad and you wouldn't want puppies to be sad, would you? Or something like that. Which is funny but, as is obvious, gets misinterpreted. One of the most important things in an ideological war is good propaganda and they're flubbing that.

 

[MWagner]

The U.S. has its own history of extreme politics (mostly but not exclusively on the far-right). But we're not talking about that--we're talking about the mainstreaming of extreme politics on social media, and their infection of previously sacrosanct or off-the-radar areas of social life. This is something new. And it's no surprise that it's happening more quickly and emphatically in the U.S.: what Americans are often best at, after all, is finding new ways to shout loudly, and new audiences to shout loudly to. But it shouldn't be confused with any peculiar predilection to extremist politics. There is no significant far-left in U.S. politics, and the far-right is probably less powerful than they make themselves appear.

I agree that politics themselves aren't any more extreme in the U.S. than elsewhere, it's how politics and social issues are handled in the media - and now in social media - that is unusual. In particular, how pop culture has become such a ferocious battlefield, especially over race and gender. There are countries that are politically far more liberal than U.S. in terms of legislation and political representation, but where people routinely make public comments that would spark a firestorm in the U.S. Entertainment seems to be the central political battleground in the U.S., where in other countries entertainment is more often apolitical, or at least able to handle a wider range of dialog without inspiring outrage.

The centrality of geek pop culture in the American culture wars is still kind of baffling to me. Maybe it's an age and demographic thing. Or maybe people just take their pop culture in general far more seriously in the U.S. than elsewhere, and geeks take it even more seriously. I mean, I've seen forum outrage over the gender disparity in the monsters depicted in the new tabletop D&D RPG book.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Trust me, politics are extreme elsewhere... Try living in Northern Ireland for a week but I think America is very big in terms of influence and so spreads further...

 

[Nerds_feather]

These are arguably closer to the American centre than the American right. Legal right-wing groups in Europe cannot legally be racist, sexist, or overtly discriminatory - otherwise they become subject to legal scrutiny and potential action.

With all due respect, whatever the law says, the practical fact of the matter is that European far-right groups are active, they are organized and they are violent. This is an example from Greece. This is an example from Britain. And this is an example from Sweden and Finland.

If those kinds of things feel fringe to you, then understand that the American far-right feels fringe to most of us.

 

[MWagner]

But isn't that their idea (no matter how skewed and repulsive) of social justice: the "deserving," by right of their gender, color, and sexual orientation, claim what is rightfully theirs, and lesser beings make do with whatever crumbs are allowed them? Surely they don't really think of what they want as injustice. They feel entitled, and the entitled always feel that they have morality -- or at least natural law -- on their side.

So if they are going to be stupid enough to label those who oppose them as "Social Justice Warriors," why should anyone shrink from the label, as though it were something to be ashamed of? Why let a term be turned into a pejorative just because a bunch of bullies choose to use it mockingly. Why shouldn't those against whom it is aimed not answer, "Yes, we are for social justice, and we are willing to fight for it."

I didn't know who the Sad Puppies were until two days ago. But I have taken the time to read comments and explanations by the principles who started the group, and I would warn anyone from accepting Fishbowl's characterization at face value. For example, one of the founders of the group is in an interracial marriage. There are racists who have flocked to their banner (and started a splinter group), but the grievances cited by the principles are more nuanced than people like Fishbowl are willing to recognize. For example, there are writers who feel they are unwelcome at publishers and in social media communities because they are Mormon. Shouldn't diversity include Mormons, Catholics, and other religious conservatives? And I say that as an atheist.

As for Social Justice Warriors, that has context as well. I get the impression you aren't widely traveled in the interwebs, Teresa, but there are forums with codes of behavior that are bewildering to simple tolerant liberals such as myself. I was banned from a forum for defending my use of the Greek pantheon in a roleplaying game milieu because the traditional pantheon is patriarchal. My justification that I wanted my game world to have a historical feel was shot down as a risible defence, since in a fantasy world I could make a deity any role or gender I want. Male Ares = virulent misogyny. There are some real nutters on the extreme left, just as there are on the extreme right, and carving out enclaves on the net where they can dictate the terms of debate seems to be their specialty. If you've never had an innocent comment flagged as 'problematic,' count yourself fortunate.

Anyway, read GRRM's blog posts for a take on the controversy that doesn't give in to a simplistic bigots vs decent people narrative.

 

[J-Sun]

Speaking of, Martin has posted more. I've only read

Blogging for Rockets

on campaigning for Hugos but he's also posted Where's the Beef? which I'll read shortly. Again, the political parallel is there. We don't elect the best public servant, but the best campaigner. But I was especially struck by the Doctor Who reference - who but the fanatical Doctor Who fan isn't (relatively) thrilled by the Dramatic Short not being five Doctor Who eps? Anyway - again, recommended reading.

Brad Torgersen also has a new couple up. The newest is effective creative writing but I don't really like it as it overdramatizes just a touch, but I liked his new parable of Solomon. Speaking of things Biblical, I think it's the apocalypse because he links to Mary Robinette Kowal's blog and I am in total agreement with her. I assume Fishbowl Helmet's outrage matches Ms. Kowal's even though the people she's decrying would purify the planet of the evil scum?

Both she and Martin foresee and/or call for greater participation in the Hugos in particular and in a larger sense. I think that can be a great thing.

 

[David Selig]

Brad Torgersen also has a new couple up. The newest is effective creative writing but I don't really like it as it overdramatizes just a touch

Just a touch?

Martin pretty much destroyed all Puppies arguments in the Where's the Beef post.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I get the impression you aren't widely traveled in the interwebs, Teresa, but there are forums with codes of behavior that are bewildering to simple tolerant liberals such as myself.

I don't know what I said that gave you that impression. I am well aware that there are places on the web that go to illogical extremes at both ends of the political spectrum.

But as a liberal I have always found it strange that so many other liberals, bending over backwards to avoid sounding like they are too radical, avoid any terminology that would imply they are taking the moral high ground. Which is convenient for conservatives, who are not at all shy about giving themselves names like "the moral majority." There is a big difference between forcing our views on other people, and having the courage to state our positions without any cant* and refusing to be intimidated by bullies on either side, speak out for what we believe is basic human decency, for the ethical, compassionate, and respectful treatment we expect to give as well as receive—and if someone indulges in liberal-baiting or whatever-baiting, then just refusing to rise to the bait.

___
*Using cant that most of the population doesn't understand, even people who are on your side, is a good way to look super elitist, and give ammunition to those who would use that against you. The English language is eloquent, flexible, muscular; what is the matter with using it instead of newly coined (or adopted) code words that limit the dialogue?

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Since there's a lot of posts from GRRM on this, I thought it would be helpful to gather them up, in order:

1. Puppygate.
2. Me and the Hugos.
3. Tone.
4. Blogging for Rockets.
5. Where's the Beef?

And that's it so far.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Martin pretty much destroyed all Puppies arguments in the Where's the Beef post.

Yes, yes he did. A relevant quote:

There were no Sad Puppies when Larry Correia was nominated for the Campbell, when Brad Torgersen was nominated for the Campbell, when Torgersen was nominated for his first Hugo. (Subsequent noms, yes, may have resulted from Puppy campaigns). That was the traditional Hugo electorate putting you on the ballot... you, and a lot of other conservative writers, religious writers, white male writers, and purveyors of space opera, military SF, and Good Old Stuff.

There was never any need for Sad Puppies to "take back" the Hugos. The feminists, minorities, literary cliques, and Social Justice Warriors never took them in the first place. That's a myth, as the actual facts I have cited here prove conclusively.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Just a touch?

Martin pretty much destroyed all Puppies arguments in the Where's the Beef post.

It's brilliant. In some ways it feels like a final word, as from now on whenever I see one of those arguments trotted out, I'll just link to it.

 

[ZombieWife]

One of my friends is a nominee and was on the SP slate. I won't name them, but suffice to say they were approached by the Sad Puppies, bought into the rhetoric of "quality trumps all," and accepted the nomination. They are regretting that now after seeing the backlash. This person told me that they aren't sure they'll ever know if they truly deserved the award, or, if the nomination happened solely because of the slate.

In my opinion, this whole thing is going to damage the writers and artists nominated more than anyone else. I wouldn't want to be on the ballot this year.

Some SP nominees who might have been lukewarm about SP politics seem to have fervently entrenched on Torgersen's side because--quite frankly--they're in too far now, or, face public backlash if they speak out against the slate. (See Matthew David Surridge's post on BlackGate along with follow-up comments by SPers).

That leads me to believe that anyone on the SP "side" must remain there unless they want to become a target for Torgersen (and now gamergate garbage that's jumped on board).

Again, more artists and writers harmed in this.

On SJWs. Honestly? At least here in the US, it's a term that I most often see used in a derogatory way by outward racists and bigots (think KKK or white supremacists) to mock people who stand up for the underrepresented. It's really one whiff above someone calling another person a "libtard." Sure, I think many of us would be proud to consider ourselves "social justice warriors," but the term has been tainted at this point and there's no reclaiming it.

At the "heart" of this whole debacle, is the SP's crying for "Quality above all else." Which is, of course, a double standard. They can't call for pure/objective quality while muttering under their breaths about how homosexuality and the "overt" presence of racial and cultural themes are bringing the genre down, because Torgerson fancies good, swashbuckling "fun" over thoughtful writing. And you know what? That's great that he has preferences; we all do. But turning those preferences into a slate and hijacking the nomination process? That's not okay. If you want to vote for preference toward "Good fun" over "thought pieces," by all means, do, but call it what it is: preference. Don't call it quality.

 

[J-Sun]

3. Tone.

Thanks for adding that. I read the first couple lines of it and somehow got the impression it wasn't part of the series and went on to the next post but I see now it is.

That leads me to believe that anyone on the SP "side" must remain there unless they want to become a target for Torgerse

A "target for Torgersen"? That's a new one on me. So far, I haven't seen him targeting anyone.

Just a touch?

Yep, just a touch. *holds arms apart this wide*

Martin pretty much destroyed all Puppies arguments in the Where's the Beef post.

But I don't agree with this part. I was disappointed in this post. Most of all because it was a rather tedious read, really. But also because Martin let certain phrases creep out like "a fourth [SP campaign] threatened", "I can hear the Sad Puppies barking out their objections" (which is certainly almost irresistible and arguably even fair but sounds (as I mentioned before, "lightly mocking") - can't find the other... Incidentally, while he admirably tries to "filter out the rabid extremists who seem mostly just to want to hurt liberals and feminists and gays" to get to "the essence of the Puppy complaint" he says that "CHORFs" [is] another offensive made-up term, like SJWs" which is partially incorrect. I don't like the term either (same thing as "Sad Puppies" and "SJW" itself) but it's offensive only because it sounds bad and isn't an elegant acronym. But it was created to admirably filter out the rabid extremists who seem mostly just to want to hurt anyone not in their definition of liberal lockstep from SMOFs which is a trufan emblem of being a "Secret Master of Fandom". SMOF is what it correlates to, not SJW. And SMOF is just saying some folks are big into fandom in a selfless way and shouldn't be tarred with same brush while others want their clique.

Thirdly, and mostly to the point, you can throw out the entire section of Martin's post beginning "Number (3) is the easiest to disprove" because (a) he persists in the mathematical mistake of assuming that if a show is not half black and half white it is unfairly biased towards whites when blacks make up something like 12% of the population. I don't know what the exact demographics are of SF writers but the idea that women or blacks or Mormons would mathematically equal any large number to be "representative" is wrong. Of course the history of the Hugo awards is overwhelmingly white male. While Hypatia was a genius, there is no way you can make women equally represented in mathematics or ancient Greek history and have anything to do with historical accuracy itself. This can be changed in our present and future but we write SF - we aren't SF - and as long as we don't time travel, we can't change the past.

You can also see what seems to me a bit of a cheat. Yes, it is absolutely an honor to be nominated. But to be nominated 35 times out of five positions when you're an editor of one of the three major magazines and the one with the highest circulation and to lose every single time until you retire turns into an insult and seems almost like a gold watch rather than a Hugo rocket. I'm speaking here, of course, of Stanley Schmidt and Analog. I mean, I'm sure he's thrilled to finally get it but I just can't help but be annoyed on his behalf. And Martin is speaking of the honor of nomination but he has won repeatedly as well as lost. He might look at it differently if he'd never won. (He mentions losing twice in one night - he also won twice in one night, which he does mention in his first post.) And he pulls out the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" element. If Correia and Torgersen are doing this and have been nominated then they're just pissed they didn't win. But if it's an honor to be nominated and nominations like Schmidt's are being used to prove there's no anti-Analog bias and Torgersen does recuse himself when he has a nominee-caliber story eligible, then it can't fairly be said to be about them and we'd have to accept it when they say they aren't concerned about themselves but about being exceptions to a bias they see.

Moving on, I believe he's honestly trying to call it as he sees it but he's probably not seeing that the vast majority of the great diversity he's citing indeed does look like that from within "your team" - oh no! I'm going to make a sports analogy! - offensive linemen and quarterbacks and receivers and all look very different. But, to the "opposing team" they all look the same. If you assume right and left are about 50/50 then you might expect to see 50/50 on the ballots but, counterexample after counterexample still does not add up to 50/50. I sort of pre-refuted Martin when citing the last several novel winners. Yes, Vinge won. Yes, Vinge has his libertarian streak. But he's much more famous as the Singularity guy and he doesn't add up to 50/50. (He's also conflating a writer being an "SJW" and being approved by "SJW"s.) And then we're supposed to be talking about works more than people. In literary terms, even Vinge's book is not exactly a streamlined action-adventure or anything. Connie Willis may sing in a church choir and she has probably written religious stories but she's not exactly CS Lewis or anything. The SPs could make a case that you may be a Christian, you may be a libertarian, you may write adventure stories, but you can't write like too much of a libertarian or a Christian and you certainly can't write a libertarian Christian adventure story. (Which, honestly, is a good thing from my PoV when I put it as starkly as that, but you can see why a libertarian Christian adventure writer might feel marginalized despite possibly having quite a large audience or audience potential.)

Anyway - long story short, I think very few SPs and probably not even many RPs are claiming they are 100% shut out. But I don't see anyone not already pre-disposed to agree being converted by Martin's argument. If they were, then the female and minority advocates would have to be content with someone saying, "See? Pat Cadigan's a woman and Delany's black and what are you complaining about? That's representative enough." Worse, Martin's kind of claiming, "Well, that guy has long hair and this one has a tan. See, we're not sexist or racist." Connie Willis can go to church and we throw awards at her anyway. Good thing she's also a liberal woman, though.

I kid. I'm just saying that was the least impressive of Martin's posts, but still mostly in good tone and trying to present a reasonable-seeming case.

 

[ZombieWife]

A "target for Torgersen"? That's a new one on me. So far, I haven't seen him targeting anyone.

If you had followed the link, you would have seen Matthew David Surridge (a nominee on the slate that declined the nomination) post his say, then Torgersen essentially clucking his tongue and giving him the, "Well, that's too bad. I put you on that list. Too bad you're not thankful for what I did." (without Surridge's knowledge or consent to be on the slate.)

It's just one of many. They're out there.

As for Martin, wouldn't you be extremely annoyed if an award like the Hugos (that Martin admires and cherishes) was completely lambasted by those who had the equivalent of a political tantrum?

 

[MWagner]

But as a liberal I have always found it strange that so many other liberals, bending over backwards to avoid sounding like they are too radical, avoid any terminology that would imply they are taking the moral high ground. Which is convenient for conservatives, who are not at all shy about giving themselves names like "the moral majority." There is a big difference between forcing our views on other people, and having the courage to state our positions without any cant* and refusing to be intimidated by bullies on either side, speak out for what we believe is basic human decency, for the ethical, compassionate, and respectful treatment we expect to give as well as receive—and if someone indulges in liberal-baiting or whatever-baiting, then just refusing to rise to the bait.

Here's the thing. I'm not a leftist. I'm a liberal in the classic sense. To me the moral high ground is the Enlightenment, the lively grappling of reason with belief, empiricism, and the broadest tolerance for freedom of expression. I do not consider conservativism to be the only threat to those values; today, conservatism is weak and in relentless decline. I consider binary thinking, passionately held irrational beliefs, tribalism, and a narrowing range of acceptable expression to be the essential threats (and to be the elements of conservatism that need to be challenged). Those threats are more or less equally distributed among the left and right, where only the objects of their fears differ. If conservatism were rolled back tomorrow, and all those who were previously oppressed were at liberty to pursue happiness unfettered, the world would be a much better place. But I would remain only moderately less anxious about the future.

We have a strong natural impulse to externalize all that is bad and internalize all that is good. It's a predisposition that we've had to struggle with every step of the way from our brutish roots to where we stand now. With dismaying frequency, it has spurred both sides in conflicts to horrific excess. There is no win condition for the human story. Only gradients of aggregate happiness, arrived at by evolving metrics and means. And as people in a free and dynamic society will always construe the good life in different ways, the only world in which everyone will hold the same values is a totalitarian world imposed by coercion.

So I'm a Girondist, not a Jacobin. A Menshevik rather than a Bolshevik. And I have the foreknowledge of their fates to warn me of what happens when reformers complacently (or fearfully) let the most radical and absolutist revolutionaries seize the reins. Absolutists have a habit of riding down all who flag in their enthusiasm for the endless purge.

TLDR: I find it a better use of my energies to shine a light on unchallenged assumptions and narrow-minded tribalism of all stripes than to sign up as a foot soldier in the crusade against conservatism.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Thanks for adding that. I read the first couple lines of it and somehow got the impression it wasn't part of the series and went on to the next post but I see now it is.

I honestly have no idea if it's meant as part of the set, I just started with his first post and linked everything that's been posted since on the off chance it was part of the same thing. *shrug*

A "target for Torgersen"? That's a new one on me. So far, I haven't seen him targeting anyone.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

And SMOF is just saying some folks are big into fandom in a selfless way and shouldn't be tarred with same brush while others want their clique.

One, you're ignoring how the acronym is used pejoratively. Two, there was no clique. Not till this SP thing started. The tastes of the fans en masse have moved in the last 50+ years. That's all. More fiction with non-white, non-male writers and characters and themes have crept onto the ballot slowly over the years because fans are largely tired of the same old he-man, shirt-ripping, just-this-side-of-gay-porn most of those stories were. That's the stuff the crowd they run with likes, great. Good for them. Most other fans have moved on, as reflected in the explosion of non-white, non-male writers and characters and themes that have been published. There's something mental about the "right" that just can't help but see a conspiracy behind everything.

Thirdly, and mostly to the point, you can throw out the entire section of Martin's post beginning "Number (3) is the easiest to disprove" because (a) he persists in the mathematical mistake of assuming that if a show is not half black and half white it is unfairly biased towards whites when blacks make up something like 12% of the population.

You must have skimmed the article because that's not what he said. He never mentioned "half black and half white". You did. Just there. What GRRM actually did was provide the numbers of the nominees and winners and show, with actual facts, that this massive liberal bias that the SP crowd are yapping about is simply a figment of their imagination. Assume for a second that the SP crowd is right and there is this vast conspiracy. Okay. How could we show that? By the vast quantities of non-white, non-male Hugo Award winners. Okay... so where are they? There's like 6 in the history of the award. Kinda destroys the basis of the SP complaint. There's such a vast liberal conspiracy keeping the conservatives down, yet the liberals have managed to get... six non-white winners. Damn. That's the most effective conspiracy in the history of conspiracies. Six whole winners in 60-some years of Hugos. Damn. Sign me up to fight the devils.

Further, the very people that the SPs are yapping about are the same people who nominated 3-4 of the founders before this whole thing even started. There's such a conspiracy that these people were all nominated anyway. *gasp* Again. The most effective conspiracy in the history of SF awards. They failed to keep out these people in the first place. They were nominated for the award and lost. Throw a few beers in them, maybe warm themselves with some Golden Age softcore gay porn and they started to see bogeymen.

He might look at it differently if he'd never won.

Right. And what did these two people do after they lost? After Martin lost how many times he formed a pity party that handed out commiseration awards and a little chant. Whilst Torg and his crew lost once and decided it was such a great injustice that they had to rig the vote forevermore so that they would win goddammit.

The SPs could make a case that you may be a Christian, you may be a libertarian, you may write adventure stories, but you can't write like too much of a libertarian or a Christian and you certainly can't write a libertarian Christian adventure story. (Which, honestly, is a good thing from my PoV when I put it as starkly as that, but you can see why a libertarian Christian adventure writer might feel marginalized despite possibly having quite a large audience or audience potential.)

You're conflating being able to write something and the mere act of it being written somehow meaning it should therefore be popular enough to get on a ballot somewhere. That's not the case. Libertarian Christian adventure stories do exist. They're being written. They're just so message over story that no one wants to read the boring things. Just because there's a message doesn't mean it's written well. If you're talking about people being able to write anything they want, we already have that. If you're talking about everyone who ever writes a story, no matter how niche getting at least a nod if not an actual win, then no, that's basically the opposite of how it should be.

As an aside. I think it's that "everyone wins a trophy" mentality we saw in the '80s coming home to roost. Now that those kids have grown up they're missing out on all the awards they were used to getting just for showing up.

Anyway - long story short, I think very few SPs and probably not even many RPs are claiming they are 100% shut out.

Yes, this is exactly what they're claiming. Across dozens of their blog posts, across hundred of threads, status updates, and thousands of tweets. That's exactly what they've been saying all along. They might get a courtesy nomination here and there but they're shut out from actually winning because of their politics. This is exactly what Torg is railing against.

But I don't see anyone not already pre-disposed to agree being converted by Martin's argument.

He didn't make an argument. He stated facts that completely undermined the entire stated purpose of the SP platform.