ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Sexism and ideological bias in science fiction

Since we're often informed by the SJWs how vital it is that more women are given awards on the basis of inclusivity, let's begin with putting the facts out there. We already know, per Mike Glyer, that Hugos have been awarded to 19 conservative winners since 1996. I went through the list of Hugo Awards by Year and counted the number of women awarded, then counted the total number of awards given out. When more than one individual was awarded, I added the relevant percentage of that particular award (so one women in a group of four counted as 0.25, for example), and rounded up to a single decimal at the end.

2014: 9 of 17
2013: 4.8 of 17
2012: 8.8 of 17
2011: 6 of 16
2010: 2.8 of 16
2009: 4.5 of 15
2008: 1.3 of 14
2007: 3 of 14
2006: 3 of 13
2005: 4.8 of 14
2004: 4.7 of 13
2003: 4 of 13
2002: 1.5 of 13
2001: 2 of 13
2000: 1 of 12
1999: 1 of 12
1998: 0.5 of 12
1997: 1.5 of 12
1996: 1.5 of 13

TOTAL: 65.7 women have won 24.7 percent and 19 conservatives have won 7.1 percent of the 266 Hugo Awards given out since 1996. This is despite the fact that conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 1.6 in the USA, which means that conservatives are underrepresented by a factor of 11.3, versus women being underrepresented by a factor of 2.

Now, if the SJWs are to be believed, sexism is a serious problem but there is absolutely no evidence of left wing ideological bias. They keep repeating this despite the fact that the anti-right wing bias in science fiction is observably 5.6 times worse than the purported sexism about which they so often complain.

Which merely points us once more towards the truth of the lesson: SJWs always lie. And if the numbers aren't enough to convince the more rhetorically minded, there is also a considerable quantity of anecdotal evidence of bias such as this comment from Martin Wisse:
To be honest, Worldcon fandom has been caught with its pants down by the Puppies, too slow to react to the first two attempts to game the Hugos. We all thought, and I was no exception, that after the Puppy nominees were trashed in the actual voting last year, the spoiled brats behind it would get the hint and fuck off.
Well, not so much. But at least we all know how seriously to take their pose of inclusivity.

Labels: ,

95 Comments:

Blogger Elocutioner0226 May 17, 2015 3:54 PM  

They say "Get the hint and SHUT UP!"
We say "Just keep talking."

Blogger Johan May 17, 2015 3:55 PM  

Do you have any idea as to what percentage of Hugos were won by Liberals (as opposed to moderates)?

Blogger VD May 17, 2015 3:58 PM  

Do you have any idea as to what percentage of Hugos were won by Liberals (as opposed to moderates)?

No. I'm just going by other people's characterizations of a) what is a Hugo Award and b) what is a conservative here. All I did was the math. But no matter how you look at it, it is very clear that the oft-denied ideological bias in science fiction is worse than the oft-reported sexism.

If affirmative action is required for the latter, it is definitely needed for the former.

Anonymous Difster VFM #109 May 17, 2015 4:08 PM  

Vox, you should compile the same statistics just for the SP/RP nominees and see how they compare to the historical norm.

I realize they are only nominees so far and not winners but it would still be useful.

Blogger tihald May 17, 2015 4:13 PM  

I wonder how many Hugos were awarded to child rapists versus the general population. Are they over represented?

Blogger Ingemar May 17, 2015 4:13 PM  

Tell everyone who listens that the point of the Puppies is to award people for being good at what they do, not for meeting diversity quotas.

Blogger murphaticlaw May 17, 2015 4:18 PM  

Well at least the whole "being the wrong kind of fan" claims can be shown as completely untrue....

Anonymous Nathan May 17, 2015 4:20 PM  

They still don't understand the Puppies, even though we've been practically yelling our aims since the beginning.

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 May 17, 2015 4:21 PM  

And if the numbers aren't enough to convince the more rhetorically minded, there is also a considerable quantity of anecdotal evidence of bias such as this comment from Martin Wisse:

Oh hey, he's a Wikipedia editor too. Gee that's a surprise....

Anonymous Winner May 17, 2015 4:30 PM  

Ah!!! Rabid poodles can't do math. Hey, pat your paw on the ground twice for "whoops", thee times for, "oh, shit" and once for "I'm an idiot". (Will that be too complicated?)

Anonymous David-093 May 17, 2015 4:31 PM  

The rabbits response while reading this post is something like "blah blah blah numbers blah blah look how smart he thinks he is blah blah blah what a fundy conservative loser!"

It's just a question now of how long they can resist showing their ignorance.

Blogger James Beech May 17, 2015 4:32 PM  

How many women submit sf stories to publishers? How many men?

Should we take it on faith that the number splits nice and even, meaning that women are underrepresented?

Anonymous Winner May 17, 2015 4:33 PM  

Ingamar, and don't forget...so Vox day can line his pockets. I mean, who the fuck is going to buy that John Wright, derivative, tired shit without an endorsement?

Blogger VD May 17, 2015 4:36 PM  

Ah!!! Rabid poodles can't do math.

Back it up, recant, or be banned. Where is the error you are claiming?

Anonymous Nathan May 17, 2015 4:37 PM  

@Winner,

Tor, from the looks of it. And, from the tired lies, are you JS/JC?

Blogger SWW May 17, 2015 4:37 PM  

Clearly, conservatives need to win fewer awards so that more women may.

Anonymous BanjoStrap May 17, 2015 4:39 PM  

Does this not also imply that if there is a serious problem of sexism in science fiction that at least since 1996 it's been the leftists who have been responsible for it?

Blogger VD May 17, 2015 4:44 PM  

Does this not also imply that if there is a serious problem of sexism in science fiction that at least since 1996 it's been the leftists who have been responsible for it?

Certainly.

Blogger VD May 17, 2015 4:45 PM  

Notice that in John Scalzi's big Award Pimpage year of 2008, he won more Hugos than all the women in science fiction combined.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 17, 2015 4:48 PM  

"We all thought, and I was no exception, that after the Puppy nominees were trashed in the actual voting last year, the spoiled brats behind it would get the hint and fuck off."

I understand him not liking his enemies. But how does being shut out of the process -- even if it's for valid reasons, in his opinion -- make someone a spoiled brat? Do these people ever think about the meaning of the words they use, or do they just grab them out of different emotional baskets?

Never mind, rhetorical question. He said "spoiled brats" because he sees himself as the hero of a teen movie, which makes the Puppies the mean jocks who always get everything they want. Never mind that it makes no sense, that's how he feels.

But even if that were true, he doesn't seem to realize: when the movie ends with the nerd hero finally winning one over the jocks -- the jocks are still there. Real life doesn't end when you win one, and it didn't stop after last year's Hugos. Apparently that comes as quite a surprise to them.

Anonymous Giuseppe May 17, 2015 4:52 PM  

Nathan,
Whiner is the same ugly bitch that was previously calling itself last-trick. As if even the most sexually desperate man would ever put his dick in that pustulent ball of lard.

Anonymous Target Rich May 17, 2015 4:52 PM  

Where is Winner's reply?

Blogger murphaticlaw May 17, 2015 4:55 PM  

Martin Wisse just convinced me to get a World Con membership.

I'll be voting based on what I like, but any ties are going to be decided by Sad and/or Rabid Puppy recommendation.

Anonymous Giuseppe May 17, 2015 4:57 PM  

Nathan,
Whiner is the same ugly bitch that was previously calling itself last-trick. As if even the most sexually desperate man would ever put his dick in that pustulent ball of lard.

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 May 17, 2015 4:59 PM  

Does this not also imply that if there is a serious problem of sexism in science fiction that at least since 1996 it's been the leftists who have been responsible for it?

Certainly.


In defense of the Social Justice Warriors braintrust hierarchy, a lot of their social justice go-girl ladywriters can't write for chit. I mean, they want to control the system, not make it into an OVERTLY laughable joke.

Anonymous Giuseppe May 17, 2015 5:01 PM  

Nathan,
Whiner is the same ugly bitch that was previously calling itself last-trick. As if even the most sexually desperate man would ever put his dick in that pustulent ball of lard.

Anonymous jack May 17, 2015 5:01 PM  

@Nathan They still don't understand the Puppies, even though we've been practically yelling our aims since the beginning.

I submit, that with 3 years of supposed listening to the Puppies movement, if they don't get it by now there is no hope for them[sjw's]

So, we should just do as we will and NOT CARE about their herd like bleating. If they scramble to change rules in mid-stream to try and save their position I think we can depend on VD and others to find the proper responses to counter those moves. I mean, what did they think they were dealing with? Some yahoo just in from the cotton fields that knew nothing of strategy and tactics? The Lord of Darkness and Evil knows nothing of conflict?
Ha!

Anonymous jack May 17, 2015 5:04 PM  

murphaticlaw May 17, 2015 4:55 PM

Martin Wisse just convinced me to get a World Con membership.

Good for you. And, good luck getting any response from them. I have yet to receive any confirmation of my money to them, or ability to get a PIN, and its been over 5 weeks now.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) May 17, 2015 5:07 PM  

after the Puppy nominees were trashed in the actual voting last year, the spoiled brats behind it would get the hint and fuck off.
Sounds like he's never gotten back up after being knocked down and can't conceive of anyone else ever doing so.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 17, 2015 5:08 PM  

Winner, is this you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xjgI5oN8DM

Blogger Kull May 17, 2015 5:10 PM  

I learned from one of the 770 roundups that sci fi is a white male imperialist colonial project. I always wondered why I am compelled to wear a pith helmet while writing. If it's true am I in danger of contracting malaria while I write?
Also apparently the message of Lord of the Rings is the supremacy of the West.
To which I would reply, So fucking what?
Wether Inuit, Ainu, or Canadian shouldn't a person have a soft spot for the home team? I have lived and traveled extensively in east Asia. There is no doubt in my mind that people there think their culture and lifeways are the cat's pajamas. Perfectly natural. Why as an artist I am pressured to set fire to my own house? Reform, criticize, sure why not. But these people won't be happy until the whole thing is burned down.
This desperate need to dominate and destroy, this must provide the explanation for their ridiculous reaction to RP/SP. I said it before, if they would have just replied with a nod and a "well played. See you next year" then there would be little wind in puppy sails.

Anonymous Wanderer May 17, 2015 5:16 PM  

OT: It begins

Female police officer shot in San Diego.

Anonymous Wanderer May 17, 2015 5:20 PM  

I had a long flight so I though I would try to read Ancillary Justice.

I also had Monster Hunters International to read.

I tried, I really tried, but Ancillary Justice is just so fsking booring and confusing! How did it win a Hugo? I ended up reading Monster Hunters International. Just the first chapter was better than AJ.

I came up with a heuristic. Whenever AJ used she, strip the s. The SJW message was pretty strong also, like that one soldier who would not obey an order to kill all the aliens.

Anyone else find it booring and pretentious.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 17, 2015 5:22 PM  

I pushed the CHORFS at 770 to far by proving that the attacks against gays in Sweden where not committed by Swedes

Anonymous BGS May 17, 2015 5:39 PM  

"Sounds like he's never gotten back up after being knocked down and can't conceive of anyone else ever doing so."

That's white man privilege you are speaking about. Edison failed the first 200 some times to get light bulbs right. The Wright brothers failed to the point they realized the science at the time was wrong & created the world's first wind tunnel to get it right. Their wind tunnel basically being a barn with 2 big fans wouldn't win a middle school science fair unless it was a vibrant that submitted it.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 17, 2015 5:39 PM  

It's just a question now of how long they can resist showing their ignorance.

Approximately one minute less than it took you to ask the question, it would appear. I find it rather rude of SJWs to go and prove our points before we can even finish writing them.

Anonymous Lulabelle (68) May 17, 2015 6:00 PM  

"Social Justice Warriors braintrust".

Hmmm. Oxymoron. Unless you drop any indication of higher intelligence from the definition.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 17, 2015 6:01 PM  

Mein Gott this is sad, how is it that this site attracts such SJW losers to comment? What is it, the fact they are so effin pathetic that they are given a participation trophy?

SJW, please send someone who can actually debate in an intellectual fashion for once.

Blogger Giuseppe May 17, 2015 6:04 PM  

Kull,
Dear Lieutenant Kull,
I refer to your missive from the SJW infested jungles of the wildassed AmeriKKKan shores. Let ma assure you, first of all, malaria is a trivial disease, it will only kill you over a long period of feverish nauseating bouts of illness, but is staved off by the simple expedient of drinking proper tonic water and keeping a stiff upper lip. At least until you faint from lack of energy and pass away in a quiet coma. In other words, nothing to worry about.

The important thing my good man, is to keep a steady hand when firing and reloading at the oncoming SJW hordes. Malaria tremors be damned, you see.
Yours sincerely,
Sir Dago the Latino

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 17, 2015 6:35 PM  

SJW inclusion has pretty much always been skin deep, and no deeper. Sometimes when I read an SJW rant I'm reminded of the scene from the Life of Brian where Brian tells the crowd, "Look, you've got to think for yourselves!" and the crowd yells back "Yes! Tell us how we are to think for ourselves!"

It's all about the exteriors with the SJW's. Ideas are way too scary for them, because of their deep insecurities.

Blogger Salt May 17, 2015 6:38 PM  

This thread makes for fine dessert after going out for a good burger.

Blogger Nate May 17, 2015 6:38 PM  

hey Winner... we're still waiting for you to demonstrate the error you've claimed was there.

Speak up son.

Anonymous d12 May 17, 2015 6:41 PM  

This is despite the fact that conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 1.6 in the USA,

I guess we don't know how or if conservative sci-fi readers outnumber liberal sci-fi readers in the USA, though.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 17, 2015 6:48 PM  

jack
If they scramble to change rules in mid-stream to try and save their position I think we can depend on VD and others to find the proper responses to counter those moves.

SJW's are both ignorant and stupid. They are ignorant of their enemies because they can't abide badthink, and they are unable to learn anything complicated that involves humans.

I once spent most of summer with three other men playing out a couple years turns of War in the East, and we all knew the full ruleset by the end of the second day of play. Ditto Sniper, Cityfight and other games. And this is an old story. Add in the more modern gamers on top of us grognards, there's a huge cohort of people with the wit to tear through a ruleset in short order, spotting the Automatic Victory clauses on the side.

There's no way the SJW's can come up with a Hugo nominating procedure that even comes remotely close to the average wargaming ruleset in complexity. So bring it on, Scalzied manboobies, bring it on.

Blogger Giuseppe May 17, 2015 7:17 PM  

The simplest way to really go for broke is vote all puppy stuff and No Award all the SJW stuff. Is it fair? Well, yes, it's using the same weapons the SJWs want to use on us. What these cretins do not realise is that fairness, rules of engagement etc. do not exist to protect us.

Anonymous Culture War Draftee #151 May 17, 2015 7:58 PM  

Vox's stats show exactly what the deal is with SJWs. They are a handful of SF writers who talk a load of ultra-left BS so they can appear morally superior. They use that to build up the public persona they use to sell their books. It is literally the triumph of style over substance.
SJWs ALWAYS LIE.

Blogger maniacprovost May 17, 2015 8:08 PM  

Remember folks, in order to cancel out the No Award trolls who are trying to hurt the fandom community by nuking the Hugos, do NOT put " no award" on your slate. Nor should you list any works that are unworthy of an award. Probably most of the nominees, if not all, are award worthy imo.

If you want to nuke the Hugos, disregard this announcement

Blogger GK Chesterton May 17, 2015 8:28 PM  

What maniac said.

Blogger James Dixon May 17, 2015 8:46 PM  

> I have yet to receive any confirmation of my money to them, or ability to get a PIN, and its been over 5 weeks now.

If you use gmail, check your spam folder. If not, contact your credit card company.

> I guess we don't know how or if conservative sci-fi readers outnumber liberal sci-fi readers in the USA, though.

Sales figures would do the trick. Shame the publishers won't cooperate. But then the writers might realize they've been getting ripped off on royalties all these years.

Anonymous jack May 17, 2015 8:54 PM  

@James

Been keeping an eye on spam folder. I don't use a very aggressive spam filter anyway. As for card company they show, online, that the funds cleared to Worldcon on 8 April.

I'll probably wait a while until the reading package starts to ship and see what comes in. If nothing, then maybe a snail letter. Multiple emails don't seem to work and the pin lookup does not either. Several tries there.

Anonymous pseudotsuga* May 17, 2015 8:55 PM  

So according to (Nichts)Wisse, I am a "spoiled brat?" Now, when he says this, I am supposed to curl up in a little ball and cry for reconciliation so that he will let me back into the Goodthink Clubhouse. Of course, the joke would be on me, as he has no honest intention of doing so, but he just wants people like me to recant.
However, I don't care what Wisse thinks. I am my own human (cismale, even!), and whichever way I vote, I do not care about his approval. I don't care about Vox's approval, either.
On the morning after I finish voting for the Hugo awards, I will look in the mirror and tell myself that I voted for fiction in the spirit of the original Hugo awards, regardless of authors' politics, sex, or melanin content.

Blogger James Dixon May 17, 2015 8:56 PM  

> If nothing, then maybe a snail letter.

I think I'd ask the credit card to cancel the charge come early June if you don't hear anything. But it's your money, so use your best judgment.

Anonymous Scintan May 17, 2015 9:13 PM  

We all thought, and I was no exception

No one will ever believe this.

Blogger Cee May 17, 2015 9:20 PM  

No one will ever believe this.
[sniggering]

Blogger John Wright May 17, 2015 9:26 PM  

"It's just a question now of how long they can resist showing their ignorance."

David,

The comment offered exactly one minute before yours was proof enough. A morlock was shrieking that Vox Day must have done the math wrong because... ah.... he did not actually give a reason. Or make a statement. Or express an opinion. It was just raw and ugly emotional noise where, once again, someone with severe self image problems is asking us to pretend he is as smart as people far superior to him in experience, intelligence, wisdom, and moral stature.

Blogger John Wright May 17, 2015 9:32 PM  

"Do these people ever think about the meaning of the words they use, or do they just grab them out of different emotional baskets?"

That is why the tagline 'SJWs always lie' is actually a compliment to them. Lying requires an intellectual fortitude they lack, namely, an ability to see the truth and a skill at misrepresenting it for one's own benefit.

Here, the false statements never give any real benefit to the SJWs, as they are -- always -- too fantastical and absurd to be credible.

The SJWs neither lie nor tell the truth. Those categories are alien to them.

What they do is feel anxiety when life is making loud noises at them, and they are confused and puzzled by simple things (such as water being wet, jihadists being bad guys, or money not growing on trees) and they want to make the bad feelings go away by pretending and pretending as HARD as they can pretend, and they mouth whatever word noises they need to make the feelgood happen.

The words don't mean anything one way or the other, nor more than whispers to a lover or threats and boasts on a battle field, or propaganda in wartime.

It is all feelings, wo wo wo, nothing more than feelings.

Anonymous Rolf May 17, 2015 9:32 PM  

For those that wonder why the SJW... No, SJB (bullies, because warrior gives them too much credit), why they don't get it, as Vox keeps saying "they always lie." First and foremost, they lie to themselves. That's why they can't learn.

Anonymous clk May 17, 2015 9:32 PM  

I am not saying that the math is wrong -- but there are several areas that might need rethinking in this analysis to show what I think you want it to show --- some rough thoughts:

1. Are you saying that that Hugo winners should represent the same percentages as found in the general population ? ... I am not sure you are saying this .. its inferred based on your conservative comment but maybe you can be clearer on this point. I would argue that if this is the case then you are drawing the wrong comparion -- its not against the whole population of the US for any one given catagory (sex, age, orientation etc) but against the population of voters (#3), or ( #2) a polulation of writers.

2. I think what you really want to see is the percentage of female winners to female authors -- if there is a bias to be found we need to know in a given year how many stories that were published and then break it down to # by women vs # by men -- then if the percentage of Hugo winners is greater than the percentage of women to the polulation of scifi writters then you have found an interesting potential external bias. Similiar analysis for other subgroups would might show similiar bias -- but -- and this is a big but ... you got to define the voters...

3. The input to the Hugos is a voter -- not the general polulation, so you need to also get some data on them --- because it can also skew the results and get misinterpreted as an intentional bias -- ie ---, if the early days the voters were primarily one group, but in the later days the demographics changed to anaother, the voting will change as well but that doesnt define an intentional bias or a nefarous plot...

4. And then I would look for way to tie in other measures of quality --- ie you might want the hugo winners to have sales numbers ($ and #) that support that a particular work was appreciated before the awards (before tha awards bump). (and I can say that sales means quality ? IDK --- but please not the amazon ratings etc as that is so nonlinear to be of no use at all)

5. And I would also look much more closely at other factors -- like who the publishers are .. you have hinted at this is the past several and we might very well find that its not a particular group that the over represented but a particular publisher -- I assume that can be tied that into # 4 and see the post hugo sales bump due and that will point to a very strong candidate for the who is really pulling the strings here (always follow the money.. who makes money from increase sales after a Hugo)


And please .. dont jump all over me . every time I bring up issues like this in the math you get upset with me .... I am on your side and I think what you intuatively feel is probably correct -- you just havent shown it in the analysis .. yet...

Blogger Cee May 17, 2015 9:46 PM  

I am not saying that the math is wrong -- but there are several areas that might need rethinking in this analysis to show what I think you want it to show --- some rough thoughts:
Ah, but see--Vox is using their rules, which amount to "[group] makes up [x]% of the population, therefore if [group] does not make up a proportional amount of high-paying jobs/win a proportional amount of rewards/etc., it's because discrimination".

More careful analyses nearly always demonstrate this to be false, but that's okay, because women will always make 77¢ to the male dollar in the minds of SJWs forever.

Blogger Cee May 17, 2015 10:02 PM  

My name is Cee, and I'm here from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Anonymous BGS May 17, 2015 10:14 PM  

"Ah, but see--Vox is using their rules, which amount to "[group] makes up [x]% of the population, therefore if [group] does not make up a proportional amount of high-paying jobs/win a proportional amount of rewards/etc., it's because discrimination"

Because since they are such rare creatures credentialed never passed a merit based test in their life black female college graduates earn more than white women with the same credentials.
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/black-asian-women-with-college-degree-outearn-white-women/?syndication=rss

Blogger Cee May 17, 2015 10:21 PM  

Because since they are such rare creatures credentialed never passed a merit based test in their life black female college graduates earn more than white women with the same credentials.

That's like hiring a unicorn! Of course you'd pay them more so they'll stick around.

And then there's this beautiful creature.

Blogger rcocean May 17, 2015 10:24 PM  

Anyone know who LInda Goldstein is? She's over at File 770 claiming some commenters here called her "Jewey McJewstein" and "even worse". Its all part of their 24 hours of hate against Vox. Right now, they're "proving" Vox is an anti-Semite by going thru every column he's ever written. Doesn't seem to have much to do with the Hugos or SF, but they're SJW's after all.

Blogger rcocean May 17, 2015 10:27 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger rcocean May 17, 2015 10:28 PM  

Linda Goldstein even pulls the old McCarthyite "Guilt by association" trick. You see Vox is an antisemite, because some VoxDay commenter said something antisemitic. After all, Vox wouldn't have let the comment stand if he didn't agree with it - would he comrade?

Blogger Cee May 17, 2015 10:41 PM  

"Jewey McJewstein"? I suppose "even worse" gets to leave the largest amount possible to imagination if that's her starting point for being offended.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 17, 2015 10:50 PM  

Is "Jewey McJewstein" actually worse than LInda Goldstein? That's like calling big gay Steve gay.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 May 17, 2015 10:51 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Cee May 17, 2015 10:53 PM  

It's like taking offense at being called an Amerifat.

Anonymous BGS May 17, 2015 10:55 PM  

CreeI see your one woman that cant pass the fire fighter physical & raise you a black forced on NYC by a judge because passing written tests be racist who is to COWARDLY to go near a fire. http://nypost.com/2015/05/17/firefighters-fear-for-their-lives-over-fire-fleeing-colleague/ When danger raised its ugly head Sir Sambo bravely fled.

Blogger JaimeInTexas May 17, 2015 10:59 PM  

Nate, you have it wrong. It is ...

speak up, barbie.

Blogger rcocean May 17, 2015 11:06 PM  

"Is "Jewey McJewstein" actually worse than LInda Goldstein? "

I guess so, if you were a self-hating Jew.

Blogger Cee May 17, 2015 11:52 PM  

CreeI see your one woman that cant pass the fire fighter physical & raise you a black forced on NYC by a judge because passing written tests be racist who is to COWARDLY to go near a fire
What I am learning from this is that my morbid fear of a house fire is completely justified, no matter how tiny the actual risk of it happening is.

Time to go live in an igloo, they can't burn down.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 18, 2015 12:05 AM  

For those that wonder why the SJW... No, SJB (bullies, because warrior gives them too much credit),

SJW is so much better because it makes every single word in the title a lie.

Blogger Kull May 18, 2015 1:15 AM  

Good one, Sir Dago!

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 18, 2015 1:19 AM  

I'll probably wait a while until the reading package starts to ship and see what comes in.

Got my PIN, just waiting for the goods because, ya know, I may be a puppy but I'm house trained.

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 18, 2015 1:27 AM  

"Jewey McJewstein?" Please. If /pol/ has taught me anything, it's that Schlomo Von Shekelburg and Chaim Hebrewman are much better fake Jewish names.

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 18, 2015 1:31 AM  

McJewstein

Reminds me of SJW Butthurt, 1988 Edition:
A Scotsman and a Jew went to a restaurant. After a hearty meal, the waitress came by with the inevitable check. To the amazement of all, the Scotsman was heard to say, "I'll pay it!" and he actually did.

The next morning's newspaper carried the news item:

"JEWISH VENTRILOQUIST FOUND MURDERED IN BLIND ALLEY."

Anonymous Wanderer May 18, 2015 1:56 AM  

Is this the relevant distinction between John Scalzi and Larry Correia?

Scalzi has characters who say "I owe you a blow job" while Correia has characters who say "give me a blow-by-blow description".

I guess I can see from that which I would rather read and it's not McRapey.

Blogger VD May 18, 2015 4:15 AM  

1. Are you saying that that Hugo winners should represent the same percentages as found in the general population ?

Of course. That is what we have been repeatedly informed is the relevant metric. Disparate impact, don't you know.

2. I think what you really want to see is the percentage of female winners to female authors -- if there is a bias to be found we need to know in a given year how many stories that were published and then break it down to # by women vs # by men -- then if the percentage of Hugo winners is greater than the percentage of women to the polulation of scifi writters then you have found an interesting potential external bias. Similiar analysis for other subgroups would might show similiar bias -- but -- and this is a big but ... you got to define the voters...

I think you don't understand the difference between dialectic and rhetoric.

3. The input to the Hugos is a voter -- not the general polulation, so you need to also get some data on them --- because it can also skew the results and get misinterpreted as an intentional bias -- ie ---, if the early days the voters were primarily one group, but in the later days the demographics changed to anaother, the voting will change as well but that doesnt define an intentional bias or a nefarous plot...

I am increasingly assured you don't understand the difference between dialectic and rhetoric.

4. And then I would look for way to tie in other measures of quality --- ie you might want the hugo winners to have sales numbers ($ and #) that support that a particular work was appreciated before the awards (before tha awards bump). (and I can say that sales means quality ? IDK --- but please not the amazon ratings etc as that is so nonlinear to be of no use at all)

Now I know you don't understand the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and I'm beginning to suspect you are somewhat neurologically atypical.

5. And I would also look much more closely at other factors -- like who the publishers are ..

Seriously? Okay, stop sperging. Just because someone mentioned math does not mean that you must immediately demonstrate that you can come up with an idea for the best equation ever. In all of your blathering on about X, Y, and Z, it somehow completely escaped you that I just destroyed one-half of the primary SJW narrative for the last ten years in a single post and handed everyone a weapon to use mercilessly against them.

Why? Because you are so eager to show off and earn a pat on the head you aren't reading for effect. Learn to read for effect as well as detail.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus May 18, 2015 8:07 AM  

rcocean: "Anyone know who LInda Goldstein is? She's over at File 770 claiming some commenters here called her "Jewey McJewstein" and "even worse"."

A quick search turned up no record that anyone was called exactly that. I suppose it's not impossible though.

There was a "Jewy Jewistan" who used to comment here. If that was her, people might have called her something like "Jewey McJewstein" just by replying to her chosen handle.

Some people thought "Jewy Jewistan" had to be exaggerating his persona for effect. (Or her persona?) I simply found him to be like some other Jews I have known.

It is impossible to know with certainty when Jews are trolling and when they are just being Jewish.

Anonymous p-dawg May 18, 2015 8:33 AM  

I think I just read the best description of why SP and RP are necessary. It's the final sentence in a review by Justin Chang of the new movie 'Tomorrowland.' It wasn't intended for sff, but it works: "Even when delivered with the best intentions, a lecture is a wretched substitute for wonder." And he appears to be a leftist, even. Oh, and if you don't want a leftist lecture, you should apparently avoid "tomorrowland".

Anonymous Facts R facts May 18, 2015 10:08 AM  

Titus, check the comments on May 5.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus May 18, 2015 11:51 AM  

Thanks, Facts R facts. So this is it. One commenter called her jewwy McJewstein, and was called out on it, and this is the bloody shirt she waves.

OK, in a spirit of walking a mile in the other person's shoes before criticizing, I'll change my handle here to Whitey McWhite for a while. I'll be sure to mention it if the suffering of being addressed that way turns out to be unbearable.

And with that settled: back to sexism and ideological bias in science fiction.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite May 18, 2015 12:02 PM  

2. I think what you really want to see is the percentage of female winners to female authors -- if there is a bias to be found we need to know in a given year how many stories that were published and then break it down to # by women vs # by men...

But that would be a cis-gendering act of verbal aggression, specifically a microrape, penetrating the victim’s emotional security on the basis of heteronormative impositions.

For the gender-neutrality-and-indeterminacy-sensitive, the solution is:

to rehabilitate the prefix "were-".

going back to the future of ~500 AD.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite May 18, 2015 12:06 PM  

VD: "In all of your blathering on about X, Y, and Z, it somehow completely escaped you that I just destroyed one-half of the primary SJW narrative for the last ten years in a single post and handed everyone a weapon to use mercilessly against them."

That bit was good, yes.

Anonymous pseudotsuga* May 18, 2015 1:04 PM  

Whitey McWhite:
That's the ticket--let's bring back the pre-Norman roots of English.
We can now talk about wer (male) and wyf (female) and the collective man.
Or we could even use guma!

Anonymous Wanderer May 18, 2015 3:43 PM  

And then there is this.

Anonymous JS May 18, 2015 4:04 PM  

What we know is this: Vox Day was clearly having a little rhetorical fun with folks by claiming sexism and ideological bias in Science Fiction. This is clear from his response to clk.

He knows that he can't draw the conclusions he drew because he doesn't know the population either women or conservatives that publish science fiction. However, he can make he claim using SJW type claims.

But given this we also know that Vox Day DOES not believe there is ideological bias in Science Fiction. At least, he has no math at all to back up the claim.

What's more likely is that the sad puppies campaign is based on his desire to win a Hugo and to pad his pockets.

Anonymous TellHer May 18, 2015 4:07 PM  

"It is impossible to know with certainty when Jews are trolling and when they are just being Jewish."

Yes...it is possible. You use the same reasoning you would use if you were asking the question of whites and christians.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 18, 2015 4:16 PM  

What we know is this: Vox Day was clearly having a little rhetorical fun with folks by claiming sexism and ideological bias in Science Fiction. This is clear from his response to clk.

Yes. He said as much explicitly. Good job.

He knows that he can't draw the conclusions he drew because he doesn't know the population either women or conservatives that publish science fiction. However, he can make he claim using SJW type claims.

Yeah, well. Sort of.

But given this we also know that Vox Day DOES not believe there is ideological bias in Science Fiction. At least, he has no math at all to back up the claim.

Now you're just making stuff up.

What's more likely is that the sad puppies campaign is based on his desire to win a Hugo and to pad his pockets.

And now you're just being stupid. Sad Puppies is Larry and Brad's thing, not Vox's.

Anonymous JC May 18, 2015 4:18 PM  

"And now you're just being stupid. Sad Puppies is Larry and Brad's thing, not Vox's."

My mistake....The Rapid Puppies campaign is clearly an attempt by Vox Day to line his pockets.

There, fixed.

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 18, 2015 5:20 PM  

My mistake....The Rapid Puppies campaign is clearly an attempt by Vox Day to line his pockets.

The other mistake you made is beating your wife. Have you stopped?

Blogger James Dixon May 18, 2015 8:11 PM  

So, I'll repeat: JC = liar.

Blogger John Wright May 19, 2015 10:19 AM  

"What's more likely is that the sad puppies campaign is based on his desire to win a Hugo and to pad his pockets. "

The top editor at Tor Books, which is the biggest science fiction publisher in New York, tells me that there is no bump in sales due to a short story getting a Hugo, and a trivial bump for novel sales. Twenty years ago there would be a noticeable sales bump, but that was back when the award reflected popularity rather than political correctness.

You are an idiot, JC, and I am ashamed to share my initials with you. Does Vox Day strike you as the kind or person who would hide his motives from a dimwit like you?

For what possible purpose?

To win your good opinion?

I cannot speak for him, but I will speak for myself and for the majority. We despise the good opinion of loathsome, craven, sneering nonentities like you, assuming we trouble to note it.

Indeed, men like us nervously wonder what we are doing wrong in life if by accident one of us did some act or uttered some phrase which won your applause.

Do you think he regard making money as dishonorable?

More to the point, do you think he regards making money as LESS honorable than the motive he has publicly and repeated stated as his motive: first, in retaliation for false accusations that he gamed the system last year -- an insult to a game designer to tell him he gamed the system and did not win -- and second to watch in joy, popcorn in one fist and whiskey in the other, as the pinheads of the social justice whiners explode in spasms of narcissism poisoning.

Seriously, you think he'd be ashamed of making an honest dollar, but boast about being provoked by bravado and schadenfreude?

Dolt, when you are making an attempt at ad hominem and disqualification, you have to accuse the victim of having a more ignoble motive than what he has publicly stated, not a less.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts