ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Larry wins

As the Torlings double down to concede his point. Lest any of you Hugo voters feel any need to be objective, or to avoid downgrading authors for their political views or being published by Tor, consider the publicly expressed perspective of one of the larger Torlings, Tor editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden:
Here's the deal for me:

Why should I vote to tell the rest of the world that SF is a place where the only difference between James White and Vox Day is their commercially published texts?

The awards we give out are are a giant signal saying "This is what we love, this is what we value, this is what we think is important."

Why the hell am I supposed to lie about what those things are?

Why have I not been flaming hairless people who refer to the bizarre text-only voting protocol they're trying to push on me as "honest"? It's obvious they're suggesting that doing anything else is dishonest.

The way they want me to vote is not honest. It's not how I think. Nor is it how I've ever voted. Nor is it how most of fandom has thought, or how it's voted, year after year, for many decades.
The Toad of Tor could not have underlined Larry's point more clearly: the Hugo awards are nothing but a giant signal. Voting based on literary merit is not only unnecessary, it is entirely irrelevant. To even suggest people should vote based on literary merit is "not honest". She openly claims "the artist's work can't be divided from the artist's politics."

How very Marxian of her. Forget the personal. The professional is the political.

Very well. So those are the rules. Now you have to ask yourself what is important to you? A lady astronaut on Mars? The truth of feelings? Or a work of eternal life? What do you value, courage and camaraderie and the triumph of well-armed good over evil, a vast and meandering morass of moral equivalency, or parasitism? What do you love, the humble faith of a beleaguered chaplain or ersatz horses or the feminist retellings of fairy tales?

You have Tor's blessing to send them an unmistakable signal. If Tor publishes it, it goes below No Award.

Labels:

369 Comments:

1 – 200 of 369 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Peter Garstig April 25, 2014 10:08 AM  

And they dig deeper...

Anonymous harry12 April 25, 2014 10:09 AM  

.
"...hairless..." ?
.

Blogger Giraffe April 25, 2014 10:13 AM  

She says this because she thinks the math works in her favor. If she felt the blues outnumbered the pinks she'd being singing the "literary merit" tune.

Anonymous Porky April 25, 2014 10:17 AM  

A vote for Tor is a vote for obesity.




Anonymous bob k. mando April 25, 2014 10:18 AM  

i value invisible pink unicorn farts.

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 10:18 AM  

It's not even fair anymore. I thought I was going to have to put in some real effort - now they're telling me I'm allowed to straight up sabotage them, if I'm so inclined.

Again, would be an ungrateful first-time member to so brazenly reject the wisdom of the old guard...

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 10:19 AM  

As an aside, can we start a pool on how long Tor officially tries to walk back the mess it's authors are creating?

Anonymous Salt April 25, 2014 10:21 AM  

Digging in the heels, gearing for a fight. It's not the lady astronaut on Mars that bothers me, an astronaut being anyone who ventures into space, her having arrived at Mars Colony. The new librarian. It's that she's also faster on the blaster than Buck Rogers, and she just did her nails.

Anonymous Anonymous April 25, 2014 10:26 AM  

Well Vox, it looks like you and Larry have Sandleford Warren all up in a tizzy.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 April 25, 2014 10:26 AM  

can we start a pool on how long Tor officially tries to walk back the mess it's authors are creating?

Oh, come now.
They're going down with the ship and they know it.
Except @scalzi.
He's looking for a lift raft as we speak.

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 10:28 AM  

Does TNH have any children?

This is what happens to a society where too many women are childless: they go out in search of things to mother.

Anonymous Porky April 25, 2014 10:29 AM  

"This is what we love, this is what we value, this is what we think is important."

From the looks of it, the most important thing to you is Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Blogger Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 10:29 AM  

As a Hugo voter, I did evaluate your work on it's literary merit.

But I was reading a blog (I'll not be linking to her thoughts - she may not want the traffic) and she had a great thought on "literary merit."

Imagine that your company had 5 job applicants for a new position, and one of them had a habit of punching you in the nose every time they saw you. Would you be willing to evaluate that candidate "on the merits" of how they perform the job?

Anonymous Anonymous April 25, 2014 10:30 AM  

"This is what happens to a society where too many women are childless: they go out in search of things to mother."

Frankly, I think anyone who thinks Athens should have won the Peloponnesian War is a NeoCon.

Anonymous Feelings, nothing more than feelings... April 25, 2014 10:30 AM  

The way they want me to vote is not honest. It's not how I think.

It's not how she thinks, because she does not actually think, she emotes.

Pink SF appears to be all about the feelgood, and the distress being seen is a result of feelbad. Clearly some people want, and need to put a "trigger alert" warning on all of reality outside of their own bedroom. Fine for them, but the rest of us live here.

Anonymous hygate April 25, 2014 10:31 AM  

Translation: The editors at the non-genre publishing houses already look down on me for being a scifi editor at Tor. And it will be a million times worse if some racist homophobe wins a Hugo, even though most of those people only heard about it because I posted so much about how racist homophobes were being so crass as to think they had a right to even be on the ballot for it.

By the way, anybody know when we are supposed to get our voting packet or whatever is called? With all the stories, novels, etc?

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 10:33 AM  

From the looks of it, the most important thing to you is Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Dammit Porky!

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 25, 2014 10:34 AM  

I was on the fence on this one, but I guess this is a statement that they want not just the Dread Ilk but the greater Ilk to buy memberships and vote. If one starts throwing out enough of these rules, the idea that you even have to read vs. just voting based on the criteria "X in Sad Puppies List" or not, this is just a fundraiser where we get to decide if the Blues or the Greens are more hard core.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 10:36 AM  

Imagine that your company had 5 job applicants for a new position, and one of them had a habit of punching you in the nose every time they saw you. Would you be willing to evaluate that candidate "on the merits" of how they perform the job?

Why not, if I knew that the reason they punched me in the nose every time was because they were responding to me kicking them in the shin first. I mean, do you realize that I have not attacked a single person here who did not repeatedly attack me first?

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 10:36 AM  

Chris Gerrib,

That's a bit rich, coming from the side who openly declared war on a man's livelihood because of a political contribution.

If you had five applicants, and one was a feminist, or a homophile, or a vocal crusader of minority-of-the-month, would you expect our side to judge them 'by their merits'?

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 10:36 AM  

As an aside, can we start a pool on how long Tor officially tries to walk back the mess it's authors are creating?

No, The Toad and Her Man Toad are Tor. It's over. This is the policy of Tor. The beginning, middle, and end of it.

Anonymous bob k. mando April 25, 2014 10:37 AM  

Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 10:29 AM
Imagine that your company had 5 job applicants for a new position, and one of them had a habit of punching you in the nose every time they saw you. Would you be willing to evaluate that candidate "on the merits" of how they perform the job?



then PERHAPS, just MAYBE, the bimbo shouldn't start punching one of the applicants in the nose before he even decided he wanted to fill out an application.

Hayden, Jemison and the rest demand the right to shit on Vox at will. and demand that he be thrown into the outer darkness immediately upon him making a response.

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 10:40 AM  

Ah, well! That does make things fairly simple then.

Anonymous hygate April 25, 2014 10:40 AM  

"But I was reading a blog (I'll not be linking to her thoughts - she may not want the traffic) and she had a great thought on "literary merit."

Imagine that your company had 5 job applicants for a new position, and one of them had a habit of punching you in the nose every time they saw you. Would you be willing to evaluate that candidate "on the merits" of how they perform the job?"

I fail to see how this analogy is relevant to to the current situation. Who is the employer? The reading public? Larry Correia sales lots of books so apparently large numbers of people who could be considered his employers don't think he is "punching them in the nose." They enjoy his prose and are willing to part with cold, hard, filthy lucre to access it.

So who is getting hit in the nose? From my perspective it looks like a lot of job applicants are getting metaphorically punched out by door men while trying to get in to the building to apply for a job.

Anonymous Feelings, nothing more than feelings April 25, 2014 10:42 AM  


Imagine that your company had 5 job applicants for a new position, and one of them had a habit of punching you in the nose every time they saw you. Would you be willing to evaluate that candidate "on the merits" of how they perform the job?


Imagine that you were one of 5 applicants for a job, and as soon as you walked in the door the interviewer punched you, and only you, in the nose before even looking at your resume, while the other applicants looked away or snickered.

What would you think of the professionalism of that interviewer?

What would your opinion of the company be?

Anonymous hygate April 25, 2014 10:42 AM  

And some people who have jobs are getting punched out while trying to get to the job.

Anonymous Roundtine April 25, 2014 10:47 AM  

Are there any rules at all for nominating a book? Could we nominate Dreams of My Father for an award?

Anonymous bob k. mando April 25, 2014 10:48 AM  

hygate April 25, 2014 10:42 AM
And some people who have jobs are getting punched out while trying to get to the job.



yeah, that would be Niven and Pournelle and Card and Heinlein ( if he were still alive ) and Wright and Resnick and Malzberg and Rabe and Kratman and ... ad nauseum.

Anonymous hygate April 25, 2014 10:50 AM  

That "applicant for a job who punches you in the nose" analogy does reveal quite a bit about the mind set of the Pink SF crowd. They are the employer, the writers and consumers are employees, and even though they have the power, they are always and foremost the victims.

Blogger Nate April 25, 2014 10:51 AM  

"Dammit Porky!"

Exactly. Its doritos and cream cheese porky! get it right!

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 10:52 AM  

Imagine that your company had 5 job applicants for a new position, and one of them had a habit of punching you in the nose every time they saw you. Would you be willing to evaluate that candidate "on the merits" of how they perform the job?


Yes, you idiot. I've hired hundreds of people. And a good chunk of them hate my guts. And I don't care. I've been punched by an employee before, and yes, I kept him on.

BECAUSE HE MADE ME LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY.

Excellence excuses anything. I will put up with a lot for the best of the best. The programmer I had who burned his car down when the voices got too loud? Kept him on. LOTS OF MONEY. The programmer who had more girlfriends than he could count and had them keep showing up at work and getting into cat fights? Kept him on, let him use the company lawyer to file restraining orders. PILES OF MONEY.

The rude, cranky, shitty programmer who was 5'1", round, and difficult to work with? Late for work 5 times, didn't log her time cleanly, TERMINATED. If she had of making me PILES OF MONEY, would I have kept her on? ABSOLUTELY.

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 10:52 AM  

Obviously the goal next year should be to nominate stormfront for best fan website.

Blogger Marissa April 25, 2014 10:53 AM  

feminist retellings of fairy tales

That's getting old. I noticed a title of "Six-Gun Snow White" as if that really needed to be done. At least be clever and get seven in the title.

Blogger Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 10:53 AM  

I mean, do you realize that I have not attacked a single person here who did not repeatedly attack me first?

My recollection is that John Scalzi did you a favor by giving you a Big Idea slot (which is where I heard of you) and you rewarded him by shitting all over him.

My recollection of the Jemison mess is that you've repeatedly denigrated blacks, gays and women then announced your candidacy for SFWA President. She reacted, saying she didn't want a racist as SFWA President, then you called her a "half-civilized savage" and expressed doubts that she'd actually written her books.

In any event, I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right, and "but they started it!" didn't work very well either.

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 10:53 AM  

Josh, that is quite possibly the best thing I've ever heard. It would barely take 100 votes to get that in.

Better, can we just make a website that is ragingly offensive to women, and get that nominated...

....The BALLOT would have to have a trigger warning.

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 10:55 AM  

In any event, I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right, and "but they started it!" didn't work very well either.

And yet that is exactly why the "otherside" has done here - get into a verbal fight with VD, then say you feel "threatened" and get the other party removed. That's exactly like Kindergarten, when one goes running to Mommy and mommy comes in swats the bottom of the other kid.

It's the perfect analogy. Manboobs is mommy.

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 10:56 AM  

Why 'recollect'? Why not *actually look up what happened*?

Oh right... can't be doing that. Facts might come out.

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 25, 2014 10:57 AM  

Yep. Wants from when weak, and takes it away when strong.

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 10:58 AM  

And while we may disagree with the particulars, keep in mind that when Scalzi does you a favor, he's looking for a sexual quid-pro-quo. Now granted, scat isn't a blow job, but surely it's the thought that counts.

Blogger Aquinas Dad April 25, 2014 10:58 AM  

I am beginning to go around to each and every person complaining about this year's Hugo nominations because of the 'politics' of Larry and Vox and posting the following:
"Lead in-
Communism is an socio-political ideology that has led directly to the deaths of millions and indirectly to the deaths over 100 million people in the 20th Century. Communism is tied to one the most oppressive, murderous, tyrannical regimes in history.
Person in Question-
China Mieville. An avowed, exuberant Communist, member of a Communist Party that openly called for violent struggle, and founder of another openly Communist political party there can be no denial in any way that he fully embraces the most destructive political concept known to history.
The honest question-
Are you aware of anyone complaining when he was nominated for a Hugo?"
Thoughts?

Anonymous Heh April 25, 2014 11:01 AM  

I dunno... Larry has Wendell the Manatee on his side, but Pink SF has plenty of manatees...

http://www.midamericon.org/photoarchive/05wfc146.JPG

Anonymous Heh April 25, 2014 11:02 AM  

Aquinas,

That's when they sputter, "I only care about his writing... this is about writing, not politics!"

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 11:02 AM  

My recollection is that John Scalzi did you a favor by giving you a Big Idea slot (which is where I heard of you) and you rewarded him by shitting all over him.

You're completely wrong. Read the SFWA report. There are more than 80 attacks on me by John, more than a few of which predate the Big Idea slot. You're also conveniently forgetting that he gave me the Big Idea slot for TIA AFTER I favorably reviewed OLD MAN'S WAR on my bog.

My recollection of the Jemison mess is that you've repeatedly denigrated blacks, gays and women then announced your candidacy for SFWA President. She reacted, saying she didn't want a racist as SFWA President, then you called her a "half-civilized savage" and expressed doubts that she'd actually written her books.

No, she lied about me and lied about the laws in Texas and Florida in a public speech in Australia THAT WAS LINKED TO IN THE SFWA FORUM. And this was after she attacked me personally on her blog. I didn't even know who she was when she first started attacking me.

In any event, I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right, and "but they started it!" didn't work very well either.

Show me the links where you attempted to hold John Scalzi and NK Jemisin accountable for their initial attacks on me and I'll consider taking you seriously. Both of them attacked me personally, solely on the basis of my opinions, before I'd ever heard of either of them.

Blogger Hubbub April 25, 2014 11:03 AM  

"Are there any rules at all for nominating a book? Could we nominate Dreams of My Father for an award?"

What category? Sci-Fi or Fantasy? Both, you say!

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 25, 2014 11:03 AM  

Clearly you don't expect to stay here for very long. Otherwise you'd demonstrate instead of "recollect."

That Big Idea post is still out there, should be easy to go through it and make your case.

Blogger Hubbub April 25, 2014 11:03 AM  

"Are there any rules at all for nominating a book? Could we nominate Dreams of My Father for an award?"

What category? Sci-Fi or Fantasy? Both, you say!

Anonymous bob k. mando April 25, 2014 11:04 AM  

Aquinas Dad April 25, 2014 10:58 AM
Thoughts?



perfectly rational, excellent and undisputable points.

expect the Loving Mallet of Correction to be used liberally on your posts. because you're an agent of feelbad.

when not banned or deleted by admin, expect disqualifying attacks or

...

silence.

Anonymous Anonymous April 25, 2014 11:05 AM  

They must assume that everyone else thinks like they do, with this combative boycott mentality about everything. How tiring that must be. But the truth is, I have no idea of the political opinions of most of the people who created the works of art that I love. It doesn't even occur to me to search them out, so the only ones I know are the ones I've discovered accidentally. I think most people are that way, if not more so.

I know Donaldson is kind of a liberal because he's written about being at Kent State during the rioting and shootings there and given his opinion on some other things in interviews. The Covenant books still hold the #1 spot on my fantasy list. I know some of Asimov's views because they started seeping through the last Foundation books, but I'd never tell anyone the original Foundation trilogy is anything less than great. Firefly was a great show, even with the eye-roll-inducing girl-warrior stuff, and I wouldn't claim otherwise because Whedon is a twit.

I can understand finding a creator so loathsome that you don't want to do anything to support him, because you'd be helping him get his message out. But in that case, the ethical and professional thing to do is to recuse yourself from voting. It's not to vote down the work, declaring with your vote that the work itself doesn't belong in the contest, because that's a lie.

But as always, lies, like truths, are only tools for the leftist. A lie told in service of advancing the cause is no vice.

Anonymous Foolish Pride April 25, 2014 11:07 AM  

By the way, this would make for a great lesson in Cruelty Artistry.

Anonymous Anonymous April 25, 2014 11:10 AM  

> "...hairless..." ?

Yeah, what's up with that? As a chin-up member of the Proudly Follicularly Challenged Club, am I being 'othered' here?

Anonymous mattos April 25, 2014 11:11 AM  

Chris Gerrib, that alleged thought was terrible. Hiring someone to work for you and voting for a merit award are completely different. No one is being asked to hire or work with Vox. The better analogy would have been whether you would still say that the hitter was a skilled pilot/mechanic/baker/etc. Which they would be regardless of whether they hit the person doing the interview. Unless of course the person hit is too controlled by their emotions to differentiate . . .

Blogger CarpeOro April 25, 2014 11:12 AM  

My personal take on this (and I have stated before that I really have no interest in it) is that any sane, intelligent people still left with the rights to vote for a Hugo should make this their last hurrah there. It is a dying organization. Stop funding it and the echo chamber of the warren will shrink a little faster. But your free to spend your money however you like. Me, I'll take the money that would be allocated to a membership fee (not that I have ever bothered with one) and simply buy more blue SF books.

Blogger Tommy Hass April 25, 2014 11:12 AM  

"My recollection of the Jemison mess is that you've repeatedly denigrated blacks, gays and women then announced your candidacy for SFWA President. She reacted, saying she didn't want a racist as SFWA President, then you called her a "half-civilized savage" and expressed doubts that she'd actually written her books."

In what parallel universe does calling ANYONE a savage equal "wacism".

I would also like to see links to his "denigrations" of these groups. He criticizes women a lot, but that isn't a big deal: he treats them the same way society has no problem treating men with. With gays, well, he treats them the same way people treat incestuous couples.

So yeah.

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 11:12 AM  

Dh,

We could nominate avoiceformen or returnofkings.com as well.

Anonymous Fred2 April 25, 2014 11:14 AM  

Doesn't VD, and LC the Dread Ilk and the Sad Puppies feel like they were out there, after a fair amount of provocation, basically going: "Nyah, so there. We can play too! Hah" and making some mildly provocative gestures back.

And then, suddenly, they get handed an official declaration of war, on vellum, with a pretty pink bow, that says " We declare war on you, no restrictions, no civilized conventions apply."

Ok then, if _that's_ how it's going to be... "Hello, regimental artillery? Those coordinates I sent you... yeah, those. You have the range right. Time on Target."

Anonymous Harold Carper April 25, 2014 11:16 AM  

@TNH The relationship between an author's assumptions about the universe and the story they tell is not a characteristic that's separable from "quality." It's an expression of how the writer thinks the universe works, and what they expect will happen in it. Call it a sense of causality.

TNH is very confused here. She seems to believe that all qualities are equal to all other qualities. Of course the writer's worldview affects the story he tells. But to what degree and how? Which aspect of his worldview is under scrutiny is key, as well as his level of self-knowledge and self-control. If his worldview holds sloth or sarcasm above industry and elegance, then that will affect the structural quality of his writing, his craft, as they say. But if it holds heterosexuality or nationalism above above homosexuality or globalism, it might affect the contextual quality, but not the structural quality. Moreover, if he is a master story teller, a devout Quaker can write a beautiful and effective story of a homosexual baboon, and TNH would be none-the-wiser. But because she is evidently unable to relate to that level of greatness and control, she doesn't believe it's possible. This is typical liberal projection.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 April 25, 2014 11:19 AM  

but Pink SF has plenty of manatees...

But see, manatees are supposed to be fat.

Blogger Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 11:20 AM  

Big Idea slot for TIA AFTER I favorably reviewed OLD MAN'S WAR on my bog. - He wasn't giving anybody Big Idea slots until after Old Man's War because he wasn't that publicly known. I did read the SFWA report. Calling somebody a racist who advocates racial segregation isn't an attack - it's a statement of fact.

No, she lied about me and lied about the laws in Texas and Florida in a public speech in Australia no, she expressed her opinion about laws, stating that in her opinion, such laws allowed for people to be stopped and shot for walking while black.

before I'd ever heard of either of them. - How is that possible in Scalzi's case if you reviewed "Old Man's War?" That book came out 2005.

Again, calling somebody who advocates for racial segregation a racist is not an attack - it's a statement of fact. Calling somebody sexist who advocates denying women the right to vote is not an attack, it's a statement of fact.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 11:24 AM  

And then, suddenly, they get handed an official declaration of war, on vellum, with a pretty pink bow, that says " We declare war on you, no restrictions, no civilized conventions apply."

More or less. I think some people were genuinely surprised, others not so much. Post-SFWA purging, I've learned not to underestimate their tactical cluelessness. They don't bother doing even the most rudimentary research about those they declare enemies, which may in part explain why their attempts to do military and combat scenes are so often inept.

Blogger RobertT April 25, 2014 11:24 AM  

How do you vote on this stuff?

Blogger Nate April 25, 2014 11:27 AM  

"I did read the SFWA report. Calling somebody a racist who advocates racial segregation isn't an attack - it's a statement of fact."

Voluntary segregation Chris. All Vox did was point out what we all lived in the lunchroom every day of our schooling.

People would rather be with people who are like them.

I note the claims of racism are the result of plain ugly tribalism on the other side. VOX BAD! VOX NOT LIKE US! US GOOD!

very civilized.

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 11:28 AM  

Hey Chris,

If someone doesn't think that teenagers, children, or felons should have the right to vote, does that make them bigoted against teenagers, children, and felons?

Anonymous Anonymous April 25, 2014 11:29 AM  

> Again, calling somebody who advocates for racial segregation a racist is not an attack - it's a statement of fact.

You mean, like

"I mean, they just move in the neighborhood. You just can’t come in the neighborhood. I’m for democracy and letting everybody live but you gotta have some respect. You can’t just come in when people have a culture that’s been laid down for generations..."

That would be an example of the kind of person that you are calling racist, not as an attack but as a statement of fact, then?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/spike-lee-amazing-rant-against-gentrification.html

Blogger Marissa April 25, 2014 11:33 AM  

How can segregation be bad, when its opposite causes more strife and violence than it does?

How can limited voting be bad, when its opposite causes more strife and the breakdown of civilization than limits do?

Blogger Nate April 25, 2014 11:35 AM  

"How can segregation be bad, when its opposite causes more strife and violence than it does?"

Government enforced segregation is bad because by definition it surrenders power to the government that the government should never be allowed. The government should never be able to tell folks where they can or can't live, eat, work, ect.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 11:35 AM  

Calling somebody a racist who advocates racial segregation isn't an attack - it's a statement of fact.

So calling a homosexual a faggot isn't an attack? Calling an African a nigger isn't an attack? Please confirm or deny this.

Calling for racial segregation is not proof of racism. And calling somebody a "self-described racist" who has never described himself as a racist is both an attack and a lie.

no, she expressed her opinion about laws, stating that in her opinion, such laws allowed for people to be stopped and shot for walking while black.

No, she lied about the PURPOSE of the laws. She didn't merely say they allowed for it.

How is that possible in Scalzi's case if you reviewed "Old Man's War?" That book came out 2005.

Because Scalzi was attacking me on March 1, 2005. I reviewed the book in May 2005. See, unlike them, I give people a chance even after they are initially unpleasant.

Again, calling somebody who advocates for racial segregation a racist is not an attack - it's a statement of fact. Calling somebody sexist who advocates denying women the right to vote is not an attack, it's a statement of fact.

Again, it doesn't make that person a "self-described racist" or a "self-described sexist". The racist I will not give you. There are many good reasons for racial segregation that have nothing to do with a belief in the superiority of one race over another. Nor is advocating the denial of the vote to women necessarily sexist, especially not if one believes women are materially better off if they cannnot vote.

Blogger kurt9 April 25, 2014 11:36 AM  

Vox,

This is a perfect example of why everything liberal-left people touch turns to crap. Liberals seem incapable of differentiating between the objective merits of a particular thing from their political obsessions! This is essentially the inability to tell reality from fantasy, which most kids learn by age of 6. This is why it is reasonable to describe liberals as people whose maturity is stunted at the level of 4 or 5 year old children, and why liberal-left ideology can be considered a mental illness.

From what I am reading on your blog, the SF awards (Hugo, Nebula, etc.) seem to be turning into the same worthless junk all of the non-technical Nobel prizes turned into decades ago. I'm not surprised. Has there ever been anything liberals have gotten in charge of that has not subsequently turned into crap?

As Lazarus Long would say, the best revenge is living well. You continue to write good fiction and reap the rewards from it and ignore the increasingly psychotic rantings and ravings from dysfunctional organizations such as SFWA. They will become increasingly irrelevant.

Blogger Booch Paradise April 25, 2014 11:37 AM  

@Chris Gerrib
Calling somebody a racist who advocates racial segregation isn't an attack - it's a statement of fact.
You mean like how calling a half savage a half savage is a statement of fact? Please prove that Jemison is not in fact a half savage as defined by VD in the blog posts in question or retract you're statement that VD has attacked her.

Anonymous Athor Pel April 25, 2014 11:37 AM  

"Chris GerribApril 25, 2014 11:20 AM
...
Again, calling somebody who advocates for racial segregation a racist is not an attack - it's a statement of fact. Calling somebody sexist who advocates denying women the right to vote is not an attack, it's a statement of fact."



You can fight objective reality but you will not win.

I will shed Bane's tears when you meet it face to face.

Blogger Huggums April 25, 2014 11:37 AM  

Gotta say i am a huge fan of blue SF/F. I didn't think there'd ever be anything worth reading in the genre published within my lifetime. Can't wait for the next AODAL. I'm a big fan of Larry Correia. I have a little trouble with John C. Wright though. When I read him, I feel like I'm back studying literature again and I can't tell if I'm "getting" it. Still, loved Awake in the Night Lands. Hope one of you guys wins.

Anonymous Stilicho April 25, 2014 11:38 AM  

> "...hairless..." ?

Yeah, what's up with that? As a chin-up member of the Proudly Follicularly Challenged Club, am I being 'othered' here?


Perhaps the Hairy Toad of Tor doesn't like to shave, or otherwise suffers from depilatory deficiencies. In other words, she's...wait for it... hairiss!

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 11:41 AM  

Calling somebody a racist who advocates racial segregation isn't an attack - it's a statement of fact.

First of all, voluntary segregation is not the same thing as involuntary segregation. Pointing out possible merits of voluntary segregation is obviously not the same as demanding involuntary segregation.

Secondly, do you think someone who advocates women-only schools is a sexist?

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 11:41 AM  

A typo I'm sure, she's upset because we're hareless.

Anonymous bob k. mando April 25, 2014 11:42 AM  

VD April 25, 2014 11:35 AM
Calling an African a nigger isn't an attack?



please don't do this. there are plenty of Semitics ( Arabic ), Indians ( Aryans ) and Caucasians in Africa.

they've got the Negro College Fund, let's use the proper terminology.


i do like how Chris has just asserted that all of Vox's attacks on Jemison, Hayden, et al are 'valid' and 'not attacks' because they are true.

Anonymous bob k. mando April 25, 2014 11:45 AM  

Stilicho April 25, 2014 11:38 AM
she's...wait for it... hairiss!



hairiss ... y?

Blogger Nate April 25, 2014 11:46 AM  

"hairiss ... y?"

Stop that! Stop it right now! you both know damned well this isn't going anywhere good.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 11:48 AM  

In the case of TNH, we can certainly defend the fat part. We MAY be able to defend the accusation of disease, but we can't be certain without access to her medical records. As for whether she is a toad or not, we're going to need a zoologist to determine if that was or was not an attack.

Blogger Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 11:49 AM  

So calling a homosexual a faggot isn't an attack? Calling an African a nigger isn't an attack? - It's using a derogatory term for a person, so yes it is an attack. (I'm confused as to why you ask.)

No, she lied about the PURPOSE of the laws - she expressed an opinion about the purpose of the laws. The jails weren't exactly overflowing with people who'd shot burglars and rapists, making "stand your ground" laws apparently unneeded. She speculated about why an unneeded law was passed.

There are many good reasons for racial segregation that have nothing to do with a belief in the superiority of one race over another. - no, not really.

Nor is advocating the denial of the vote to women necessarily sexist, especially not if one believes women are materially better off if they cannot vote. - again not really, and in that case highly paternalistic. "Don't trouble you're pretty little head, dear - I'll handle the voting."

I'll give you the "self-described" and we'll have to agree to disagree on definitions. But if you run around in warpaint with feathers in your hair and carry a tomahawk, don't be surprised if people call you an Indian.

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 11:50 AM  

Why are you stereotyping Indians?

Blogger Nate April 25, 2014 11:52 AM  

"But if you run around in warpaint with feathers in your hair and carry a tomahawk, don't be surprised if people call you an Indian."

RACIST BIGOT!!!

Anonymous Anonymous April 25, 2014 11:52 AM  

As a Hugo voter, I did evaluate your work on it's literary merit.

But not on it's grammar, I hope.

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 11:53 AM  

THOSE ARE RACIST STEREOTYPES ABOUT INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, NATIVE AMERICANS, AND FIRST NATIONS.

Blogger Nate April 25, 2014 11:54 AM  

"But if you run around in warpaint with feathers in your hair and carry a tomahawk, don't be surprised if people call you an Indian."

also... just so we're clear... you're saying that if someone does not behave in a fully civilized manner... then that person may expect to be called a half-savage? you know for example if that person where to tell stories on social media bragging about stabbing people?

Stabbing people doesn't seem entirely civilized to me.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 11:54 AM  

It's using a derogatory term for a person, so yes it is an attack. (I'm confused as to why you ask.)

So, "racist" and "sexist" are not derogatory terms for a person, in your opinion?

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 11:55 AM  

Pro tip:

If you're going to call someone a racist, don't use racist stereotypes when you're doing it.

Anonymous MrGreenMan April 25, 2014 11:56 AM  

@Chris Gerrib

There are many good reasons for racial segregation that have nothing to do with a belief in the superiority of one race over another. - no, not really.

You should get out of your parochial worldview and go find a black neighborhood where the people are trying to reclaim their blocks, or the parents are trying to reclaim their schools. You would find that the black people will say to you - get your damn white hands out of our government and our schools; get your damn white money out and stop putting in people who are incompetent but you like to run things; give us what's ours and leave us be; stop your damn white college recruiters coming in and taking away our best and brightest to send to Harvard or Stanford, where they fail, instead of sending them to Howard or Fisk, where they succeed and lift up their community.

It's a conceit of the Left that minority communities would not set up enclaves and structures apart if not constantly meddled with. They will and they do, every single time. The Atlanta Compromise was enunciated by a black man who had seen slavery, seen freedom, and had devoted his life to uplifting his own community, after all.

Blogger cmate April 25, 2014 11:56 AM  

What a coincidence, I just found 40 bucks in an old suit.

Anonymous Alexander April 25, 2014 11:56 AM  

Hmmm...

If one were to put together a list of outstanding artists, musicians, scientists, theologians, philosophers, etc. etc. whose personal views had a flaw that would make it impossible - by their own words - to give these (predominantly white, cis-gendered, christian, male, etc. etc.) people due acknowledgement, then can't we prove that their world views would have prevented the creation and passage onwards of western civilization?

Or to be *really* fair, how much of Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Bantu, Mayan... culture was produced by bad thinkers?

And it *that's* the case, then... well, "half-savage" would be a very generous 'insult'.

Blogger Booch Paradise April 25, 2014 11:57 AM  

Calling somebody a racist who advocates racial segregation isn't an attack - it's a statement of fact.

So calling a homosexual a faggot isn't an attack? Calling an African a nigger isn't an attack? - It's using a derogatory term for a person, so yes it is an attack. (I'm confused as to why you ask.).

if you run around in warpaint with feathers in your hair and carry a tomahawk, don't be surprised if people call you an Indian.

Are you saying its just as insulting to call someone an Indian as it is to call them a racist? Are Indians just as bad a racists to you?

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 11:58 AM  

But if you run around in warpaint with feathers in your hair and carry a tomahawk, don't be surprised if people call you an Indian.

Then why are you surprised when I called Nora Jemisin "an educated, but ignorant half-savage"? The statement is perfectly and provably true. By your own definition, it's not even an attack.

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 11:59 AM  

MrGreenMan--

Anyone who has ever gone to San Jose knows exactly what you mean. I considered buying a building in a Chineese-American neighborhood. The response was nearly identical to that of the KKK. There wasn't quite a burning cross, but that was about the only thing missing.

Blogger rcocean April 25, 2014 12:01 PM  

Calling someone a racist is an opinion - not a fact, because the word can mean so many things and has been abused, its a meaningless insult label like Nazi, Fascist or homophobe.

And I amazed that the leftists are making their position so clear. Literary merit is meaningless, adherence to the party is the only true standard to judge others work. I wonder how many naive readers didn't know this, and read their left-crap under the impression it was the best SF could offer.

Anonymous Stilicho April 25, 2014 12:02 PM  

Stop that! Stop it right now! you both know damned well this isn't going anywhere good.

Hairetic

Blogger Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 12:02 PM  

So, "racist" and "sexist" are not derogatory terms for a person, in your opinion? No they are not derogatory. They reflect behavior that society condemns, but the terms are as non-derogatory as one can get when referring to "bad" behavior.

Anonymous Andy April 25, 2014 12:02 PM  

I enjoy your blog and your interactions with the rabbits Vox. I have to ask you though, does it get tiresome dealing with them? Obviously its educational to your readers, but I'm curious if you are so accustomed to smacking them down that it doesn't take much of your time or thought, similarly to a tradesmen who has perfected his craft to such an extent that his work is second nature.

Anonymous SkinDeep April 25, 2014 12:03 PM  

Does someone looks make a difference in the validity of their opinion? Also, and this point is more important. Why don't any of you make fun of the way Toni Weisskopf looks? Certainly no more attractive than Hayden.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 12:06 PM  

No they are not derogatory.

DEROGATORY: "tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person or thing"

Interesting. So, you don't see someone being racist or sexist as tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person? Is that correct?

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 12:09 PM  

And I amazed that the leftists are making their position so clear. Literary merit is meaningless, adherence to the party is the only true standard to judge others work. I wonder how many naive readers didn't know this, and read their left-crap under the impression it was the best SF could offer.


It is in the process of being walked back. Go read the whole thread. There is dissension on what is is and is not acceptable in terms of reading the work before voting.

In a few more weeks, this thing will be a full fledged crisis.

Blogger Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 12:09 PM  

Nora Jemisin "an educated, but ignorant half-savage"? The statement is perfectly and provably true. I read your initial post and the follow-ups on Jemisin. They didn't "prove" anything. It looked to me like you were trying to tie her desire to walk down the street without being stopped to a fear of some mythical army of blacks coming to take your stuff.

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 12:10 PM  

For example, if a certain bank was sent certain comments that a certain executive had made about a certain minority group, would that learn the reputation of that executive amongst his or her peers and colleagues?

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 12:11 PM  

Toni Weisskopf

is a fat toad. Happy?

You are missing the best part of the insult. Which is the croaking and orbiting flies. The croaking is what makes the insult so effective. And the response.

I suspect that Ms. Weisskopf won't deign to get me kick off the internet for calling her a fat toad.

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 12:12 PM  

@Chris Gerrib.

Do you believe all the people at black colleges like Howard University are racist?

Do you believe all the people at female colleges like Mary Baldwin are sexist?

If not, then you agree there are valid reasons for voluntary segregation by race or gender that have nothing to do with the superiority of one over another.

Blogger Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 12:13 PM  

Interesting. So, you don't see someone being racist or sexist as tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person? - of course it "lessens your merit." There's a difference between calling somebody "sexist" and "woman-hating wife-beater" for example. Thus my statement that they were as non-derogatory as one can get.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 12:14 PM  

I have to ask you though, does it get tiresome dealing with them? Obviously its educational to your readers, but I'm curious if you are so accustomed to smacking them down that it doesn't take much of your time or thought, similarly to a tradesmen who has perfected his craft to such an extent that his work is second nature.

Sometimes, but then I just ignore them. Dealing with these geniuses doesn't even take 10 percent of my processing power. Half the time I'm on the phone or something while I'm dealing with it. I mean, TNH is someone they look up to, and she doesn't realize that Larry handed her a rope, she tied it around her own chins, then stepped off the scaffold.

Does someone looks make a difference in the validity of their opinion? Also, and this point is more important. Why don't any of you make fun of the way Toni Weisskopf looks?

Do you have Asperger's or something? Why would we make fun of Toni Weisskopf on any account? We like Toni. The Toad of Tor has attacked everything from my mental stability to my attractiveness to women. We've simply pointed out that she is physically grotesque and observably stupid. Which, by Chris's standards, is not an attack, as it happens to be true.

Blogger Marissa April 25, 2014 12:16 PM  

Government enforced segregation is bad because by definition it surrenders power to the government that the government should never be allowed. The government should never be able to tell folks where they can or can't live, eat, work, ect.

We'll have to agree to disagree. The government is the muscle behind "voluntary" segregation.

Blogger Midknight April 25, 2014 12:19 PM  

I can't take credit for this observation - but it is interesting that the "Lady Astronaut" piece is by an author who was in a high dudgeon over "lady editors" ....

Now, I sort of get the point that using "lady editor" instead of editor in circumstances where gender is irrelevant may be unnecessary (but I still don't think anyone should get worked up over it) - but in the Malzberg kerfluffle, her being a lady was relevant to mentioning she was also beautiful.

When you put "Lady" astronaut in the title, the first thing in my mind as to why this is a title for the story is "why is 'Lady' relevant?"

It basically advertises that "lady" is the important part, rather than profession, or the events she's embroiled in.

Sortof like "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."

This immediately makes me suspect - especially because of the positions she's taken re: malzberg, lady editors, and some of the great writers like Pournelle - that it's about all those things a lady has to deal with because she's a lady and the men around her are ignert sexist pigs.

In short - no thanks.

Blogger traderdoc April 25, 2014 12:20 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger tz April 25, 2014 12:22 PM  

They don't think any of the following are important, or value them:

Literary quality and the Writer's ability with words
Entertainment.
Cohesion, Plot and pace, Characters that can be related to.
Moral lessons of the story, even the morality of the warren.
Profits.
Being fair to the Authors.

What does matter is how politically correct the author of a work is completely divorced from anything good or bad about that work.

"No Award" should be the winner in every category.

Blogger CarpeOro April 25, 2014 12:22 PM  

"The jails weren't exactly overflowing with people who'd shot burglars and rapists, making "stand your ground" laws apparently unneeded."

At what point do the number of people jailed for protecting themselves reach the point where a law is needed? 10? 100? 1.000? Or someone related to you? Want to make a bet that she is more concerned about the attackers than their potential victims because (wait for it)... they happen to be people of color and their armed intended victims aren't. Raciss!

Blogger traderdoc April 25, 2014 12:23 PM  

DEROGATORY: "tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person or thing"

Interesting. So, you don't see someone being racist or sexist as tending to lessen the merit or reputation of a person? Is that correct?

Wow, Chris. This all sounds like Alice in Wonderland/Humpty Dumpty.

The liberal can define anything to mean anything.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Who's to say what is "proper"? What if it was agreed that "proper" was wearing a codfish on your head? Would you wear it?

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 12:23 PM  

Chris G.

It would be helpful if you could post your religious affliation or non-affiliation. I am trying to judge your criticism of VD's work:

"Although PCotI’s story has a body-count of 60 or so, the action is off-screen. The one-line summary is “elf finds friend. But MRK’s story grabs my heart, and PCotI’s leaves me cold.”

You made a strong point about "Fan service". MRK's fan service is: The Wizard of Oz and Ray Bradbury. For those of us who are religious, VD's fan service is that most, or nearly all, SF/F exists in a vacuum where multiple species co-exist yet never deal with the issue of ensoulment or even realistic-like practices or discussions of religion. GMRR's religion, at least, have a context and some consistency [but he couldn't hold them to religion, he was essentially forced by his arc to turn his religion into Magic]. The fan service is the work, as a whole, contemplating multi-species religion and the nature of the soul in a multi-species world. I found MRK's work to be unrealistic. I've met dozens of astronauts, and not a single one ever would have dreamed of going into space on "one more mission" without consulting God. That leaves a believer more than cold, it breaks the ability to suspend our implausibility filter.

Your criticism is a striking example of how far apart the left-centered world of SF/F is from the right.

Anonymous Athor Pel April 25, 2014 12:24 PM  

"Chris GerribApril 25, 2014 11:49 AM
...
But if you run around in warpaint with feathers in your hair and carry a tomahawk, don't be surprised if people call you an Indian.
"



Indeed. Be careful how you act for some may infer identity from action.

One Riot, One Ranger...

Anonymous Harsh April 25, 2014 12:24 PM  

Is this Chris Gerrib clown a writer? I've never heard of him.

Anonymous Jeanne April 25, 2014 12:25 PM  

What is the difference to the voting if you rank a work below NO AWARD vice leaving it off the ballot entirely? Because, if I understand the balloting and vote counting correctly, a work ranked below NO AWARD can still be distributed in the second and third and fourth rounds of vote counting. So, I think leaving it off the ballot entirely might be the best thing to do...

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 12:27 PM  

Chris is writer of sorts, according to his blog. He's also a leftist apostate, a gun nut.

Anonymous bob k. mando April 25, 2014 12:28 PM  

Stilicho April 25, 2014 12:02 PM
Hairetic



so ...

now is can be Calvinism vs Arminianism debate time?



Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 12:02 PM
No they are not derogatory. They reflect behavior that society condemns,


ah?

word definitions are relativistically dependent on current societal mores?

so, all we need do is shift the mores of current American society be more like current Chinese or Japanese society and then Vox will no longer be 'racist'?

i like the way you think. sign me up for your newsletter.




Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 12:09 PM
a fear of some mythical army of blacks coming to take your stuff.



newsflash, rioting black mobs completely mythical.

Detroit, Elkhart, Atlanta and Los Angeles to be informed that history be racisssssssss.

Anonymous dh April 25, 2014 12:34 PM  

Chris G--

I would also point out, that the type of theological discussion that VD's nominated work entails is still considered very basic by those who regularly have these discussions. It's a slice of Aquinas' theological framework translated to a new world. It is not, by any means, the most difficult to comprehend stuff out there.

One of the many reasons that VD has a larger following than Scalzi or many other authors you've heard of is that this blog is full of discussions that are light years ahead of his authorial competitors elect to discuss. No doggie pics, no bragging about his lawn, no exploitative photos of his kids. If you've ever wondered about the nature of money and credit, though, there are a few multi-week discussions that will put you on your backside.

Anonymous Harsh April 25, 2014 12:35 PM  

Chris is writer of sorts, according to his blog. He's also a leftist apostate, a gun nut.

That's all we need, another gamma with a gun who's angry at the world.

Anonymous Anonymous April 25, 2014 12:41 PM  

Chris is writer of sorts, according to his blog. He's also a leftist apostate, a gun nut.

So he's coming on strong with the defense of his leftist buddies to make up for his apostasy on guns? Doesn't he know that's not possible?

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 12:43 PM  

Wait, so we have a liberal gun nut who is also against stand your ground laws?

Anonymous Edjamacator April 25, 2014 12:44 PM  

OT:
Another one down in case it hasn't been posted yet. Sorry if it has.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 12:44 PM  

of course it "lessens your merit."

Then it is, by definition, derogatory. Are you beginning to grasp that you are in considerably over your head here yet?

Anonymous Logo April 25, 2014 12:45 PM  

That's getting old. I noticed a title of "Six-Gun Snow White" as if that really needed to be done. At least be clever and get seven in the title.

It's not easy being the fairest of them all.

Wilhelmina Icked Queen was born a buck-nosed and hook-toothed ghoul the merest sight of whose gnarled countence set children and animals screaming with fright. Men fled from her en masse as she puked out raving feminist garbage of how beauty was superficial and how personality should form the basis of male-to-female attraction, until the day she discovered a gene therapy that would make her invincible, immortal, and drop-dead gorgeous.

Unleashing her army of genetically modified super-soldiers she conquered the Earth, and proclaimed a new law, that supreme leadership of humanity could only go to she of supremest beauty. After releasing a retrovirus into the water supply that would turn all other women into buck-nosed, hook-toothed ghouls, it was no contest. Queen truly was fairest of them all.

But one little baby was immune from the ugly virus. Raised on a farm in Obscure, Oregon, little Cynthia "Snow" White was the most beautiful little girl ever to live, a fact which her parents tried to conceal, but which Queen's Magic Mirror Biometric Surveillance Network revealed.

Sweet and innocent Snow White watched as her father was tortured to death, as her mother was gang-raped and blasted apart by blazing guns. And she knelt and sobbed in despair by their bodies as the assassins affixed the helmet to her, and sent the deadly eighteen-billion volt electrical charge surging through her brain and spine, bringing death.

Snow White's body was sent to the lab to be dissected and analyzed but Dr. Huntsman, the queen's cuckold husband who was also a brilliant scientist and in fact had invented all the technology the queen was using to dominate the world, took pity on the little girl. Using the power of science, he brought her back to life, as a reanimata, a mechanically augmented undead soldier, and outfitted her with the legendary revolver The Seven Deadlies, the most lethal weapon in the world that takes the life of all who even touch it. But Snow White isn't exactly what you'd call "alive" anymore, and the seven chambers of the revolver encode bullets with a spell that can kill anything, even immortal, invincible queens.

Engine of her soul ignited by hate, haunted by memories of torment and grief, invisible to the queen's biometric surveillance network, and bent on revenge, Snow White sets out through the world. A decade of absolute matriarchy has not been kind to the place. The vegetation is withered, the waters dried up, and civilization has crumbled away. The lands are barren deserts, poison marshes, cadaver cities crawling with the shambling remnants of unhumanity. Horrors roam the desolation: mutants, werewolves, robots, zombies, giant plants that eat people, outlaw biker gangs, evil kung-fu masters, mad scientists and goblins and monsters from legend and myth. Snow White will have to get through them all, if she wants to get to the queen.

The queen has an army of genetically modified atrocities on her side. Snow White has a gun that can kill anything. Its seven chambers hold seven bullets. She is:

Snow White and the Seven Bullets.

Forth coming 2015, from Castallia House!

The fairest of them all was never so fierce.

Anonymous Yen N. Blinks April 25, 2014 12:46 PM  

This is nothing more than the "if you're so TOLERANT, then why aren't you tolerant of my intolerance?" troll argument, which is completely morally invalid. If accepted, it gives all the power to the bullies and bigots, and leaves the bullied with no recourse... which is why it's so frequently deployed by bullies. Tolerance is a two-way street; stop talking about the "Pink Brigade" and the rest of that rot, and perhaps people will be more inclined to ignore your own political agenda. Which, BTW, you have just openly acknowledged, in the teeth of your claim not to have one. Too bad.

Blogger Unknown April 25, 2014 12:50 PM  

Were these the same people who argued that Bill Clinton's personal meanderings had nothing to do with how well he did his job in the White House? I guess that personal lives don't bleed into the professional life of the leader of the free world, but the purported sins of fiction writers cannot be divorced from their work.

Blogger Marissa April 25, 2014 1:01 PM  

Very impressive, Logo. You came up with something that actually sounds like a fun, interesting story.

Anonymous Harsh April 25, 2014 1:03 PM  

Tolerance is a two-way street; stop talking about the "Pink Brigade" and the rest of that rot, and perhaps people will be more inclined to ignore your own political agenda.

Are you seriously asserting that the rabbits will ignore people with differing political views if we cease to call them names? Really? Seriously? Is that your assertion? I want to give you a chance to retract before you get ripped apart.

Anonymous Stilicho April 25, 2014 1:04 PM  

now is can be Calvinism vs Arminianism debate time?

Some might say it was ... pre-destined

Blogger Username_Unavailable April 25, 2014 1:08 PM  

Yen N. Blinks

1. Are you Lee or just ripping him off?

2. What, exactly, does this copy and paste job have to do with anything? To whom are you responding?

Anonymous alexander April 25, 2014 1:08 PM  

How can moral relativism result in any moral code being invalid?

Anonymous Arcturus Rann April 25, 2014 1:10 PM  

I was amazed by the comments over there. This was my first exposure to this particular rabbit hole and they are just completely blind to their hypocrisy. It's not just that they don't agree with the opposing view, they really can't even grok the concept of it.

The cherry was when they banned a fellow SF writer from the blog for not being in lockstep. Rabbits gonna rabbit.

Anonymous VD April 25, 2014 1:11 PM  

Tolerance is a two-way street; stop talking about the "Pink Brigade" and the rest of that rot, and perhaps people will be more inclined to ignore your own political agenda.

You're obviously and completely wrong. I never once talked about these people before. I hadn't even heard of most of them when they started attacking me. Now that they're getting their asses kicked, they're suddenly shutting their fat mouths and people like you are trying to convince us to stop.

Won't happen. We haven't even begun to warm up.

Anonymous Jeanne April 25, 2014 1:11 PM  

"Tolerance is a two-way street; stop talking about the "Pink Brigade" and the rest of that rot, and perhaps people will be more inclined to ignore your own political agenda."

What a stupid thing to say since the "Pink Brigade" and their cohorts were the ones who initially chose to judge people according to their political agenda. They are the ones who decided that personal political views were a legitimate metric to use and they began using it. No matter what we do, short of changing our viewpoint to something they will deign to accept, they will choose to judge us that way.

Seriously dude, you are incredibly obtuse if you think otherwise...

Blogger James Dixon April 25, 2014 1:13 PM  

> As an aside, can we start a pool on how long Tor officially tries to walk back the mess it's authors are creating?

As others have noted, this is their editor, not an author.

> From the looks of it, the most important thing to you is Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Come on Porky. You know she'd never stoop to eating anything from an Appalachian state like Kentucky.

> Better, can we just make a website that is ragingly offensive to women, and get that nominated.

Women, or these women? If the latter, simply nominating Castalia House's website should suffice.

Anonymous G April 25, 2014 1:21 PM  

Paul Weimer ‏@PrinceJvstin 5h
After the Hugo Nominations,and the views of a certain rancher have come to light:
Larry Correia==Sean Hannity;
Cliven Bundy==Vox Day

Biclops. ‏@UnseenPerfidy 15h
As a Mexican-American, I'm totes glad that fuckers like Vox Day want me expelled from the country I was born in. http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/04/20/another-day-another-hugo-controversy/ …

Anonymous Toddy Cat April 25, 2014 1:31 PM  

"Bullies"

I love the way SF lefties use this word, as if Vox and Larry are giving the noogies and stealing their lunch money. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

Anonymous Ain April 25, 2014 1:31 PM  

Chris Gerrib: "Imagine that your company had 5 job applicants for a new position, and one of them had a habit of punching you in the nose every time they saw you. Would you be willing to evaluate that candidate "on the merits" of how they perform the job?"

Routine violence at the workplace absolutely effects how one does their job, every bit as much, if not more, as somebody that's constantly disrupting the workplace through other means. This is a poor example of the point I suspect you're trying to make.

Anonymous Arcturus Rann April 25, 2014 1:40 PM  

“Tolerance is a two-way street; stop talking about the "Pink Brigade" and the rest of that rot, and perhaps people will be more inclined to ignore your own political agenda.”

You’re a moron. Making unprovoked attacks is the modus operandi of the Pink Brigade. They’re the ones who force everything to be political and they are the ones threatening to punish others for not thinking the same way they do.

If I was so intolerant as to let my personal politics get in the way of reading Science Fiction & Fantasy, I wouldn't have much of it to read.

Anonymous alexander April 25, 2014 1:44 PM  

To even the most tolerant observer, tolerance died with Mozilla. So I dont teally care what type of street tolerance is, I aint going down it anymore.

Anonymous Arcturus Rann April 25, 2014 1:47 PM  

"Bullies"

It's a great word to marginalize and negatively paint those with whom you disagree.

Ex. When N.K. Jemisin starts attacking Vox unprovoked and uses her public pulpit to spout horrible things about every white person in America, not bullying. When Vox replies on his blog in order to defend himself and call her out on her lies, bullying. Got it.

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 1:56 PM  

of course it "lessens your merit." There's a difference between calling somebody "sexist" and "woman-hating wife-beater" for example. Thus my statement that they were as non-derogatory as one can get.

You are conflating derogatory and inflammatory. Both terms you use are obviously derogatory, one is simply more crude and inflammatory than the other. Both are also obviously attacks.

Tolerance is a two-way street

Not true. Tolerating only those like you is clearly not tolerance at all, but simply the universal human inclination to sympathize with the familiar and fear the other.

If tolerance isn't willing to be unilaterally tolerant, it's not tolerance in the first place.

Saying you are tolerant towards only those who think like you do is, by definition not tolerance.

Blogger rcocean April 25, 2014 1:56 PM  

Funny that the left trolls are simply playing a variation on:

Lefty 1 : attack, attack
Lefty 2: attack, attack
Conservative: Counter-attack
Lefty 3: How rude - stop attacking liberals!


Blogger Nate April 25, 2014 1:56 PM  

"Won't happen. We haven't even begun to warm up."

You realize what this means right?

Tom Kratman is going to nominated for a hugo next year. Probably more than one. And Wright is going to win one.

And Vox will likely be nominated in multiple categories.

You have no idea how badly the Pink Bunny Brigade has fucked up.

Anonymous morbido April 25, 2014 1:56 PM  

VOX DAY: What is your take on this book??

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/krugman-the-piketty-panic.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

“Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” the new book by the French economist Thomas Piketty, is a bona fide phenomenon. Other books on economics have been best sellers, but Mr. Piketty’s contribution is serious, discourse-changing scholarship in a way most best sellers aren’t. And conservatives are terrified. Thus James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute warns in National Review that Mr. Piketty’s work must be refuted, because otherwise it “will spread among the clerisy and reshape the political economic landscape on which all future policy battles will be waged.”

Well, good luck with that. The really striking thing about the debate so far is that the right seems unable to mount any kind of substantive counterattack to Mr. Piketty’s thesis"

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 2:03 PM  

Taleb has said that pikettys math is bad

Blogger JaimeInTexas April 25, 2014 2:04 PM  

Will this call bring into view the number of people who are willing to vote because of an author's public political opinions?
Will the final raw tally be available?
1) Number of people who voted "No award" exclusively to "Black Flag SF/F"
2) Number of people who voted "No award" exclusively to "Pink Bunnies SF/F"
3) Number of people who voted "No award" or in favor to either.

That might tell the polarization level of the Hugo award membership.



Anonymous G April 25, 2014 2:06 PM  

Headliner for 2015 Worldcon leaked...

Shingy Just Spent 20 Minutes Yelling Insane Gibberish on a Stage
http://valleywag.gawker.com/shingy-just-spent-20-minutes-yelling-insane-gibberish-o-1567135673

Anonymous Daniel April 25, 2014 2:08 PM  

Won't happen. We haven't even begun to warm up.

This. I am a stay out of everything and let the world burn kind of guy. I've spent decades doing my own thing in my free time, working with publishers, leaving the Left alone.

All they have done is encroach on the lives and reputations of men I know and desecrate the things we hold dear. The less I have done, the bolder they have become.

Tolerance is a one-way street to conflict. The Marxists started it, and now are bawling their eyes out all over the internet, expecting people like us to save them by going quiet.

If it comes down to feelings here's the truth: I feel better when they suffer. I feel stronger when they unleash their acid tongues on one another, thinking I'll care. I feel proud of my birthright when they expose theirs to be a fraud. I feel great when they turn on each other, too afraid to address reality. I feel awesome when they wreck their own awards as soon as they start to honor the truth.

And isn't that what this is all about? Feelings? I haven't laughed as much in my life as I have over the Keystone Kops of the SFWA started driving their midget cars around crashing into each other in the name of equality and tolerance.

I feel just fine speaking against the fools, and ridiculing the proud. Let me know what the benefits of falling silent are, and I'll consider it. Until then, my mirth is going nowhere.

Blogger Glen Filthie April 25, 2014 2:09 PM  

Well Vox, I hate to say it but I disagree with you on this a bit. It goes the other way too.

I will not buy another Stephen King novel. I am an avid fan of the shooting sports, and King is a devout enemy of my interests and American 2nd Amendment rights. So - fuck him, his dog and his sister, I ain't buying his books, and I won't put a penny in his pocket. Fact is if I saw him broken down on the side of the road and it was -30 C out - I would drive past and leave that shit to fend for himself.

Sure, he writes well, and he has done some fine work - but so have you and the oh-so-hateful Larry C. I see nothing wrong with this, King is free to write and sell his shit to whoever wants to buy it - and I am free to patronize the authors I prefer.

Further, if they want to make the awards politics specific, what of it? I would actually prefer that as a buyer because as it is right now, if some novel carries a Hugo I will know that it has been written by a left wing idiot and probably is a sermon extolling faggotry, feminism or some other ass-hattery that will only annoy me and leaving me wanting my money back.

I don't think your success hinges on this battle. I think it is assured. The genre is bigger than the rabbits and they know it. Fuck them and their politics; what matters is sales and what the bum in your mirror thinks. Give the rabbits the finger, do it loudly and proudly - but most of all keep writing and selling good books. THAT is the battle you have before you.

Blogger Chris Gerrib April 25, 2014 2:10 PM  

VD:

Arguing about "who started it" has one fundamental problem: the racists and sexists started it. These arguments did not start when Vox Day signed onto the Internet. For example, the racism argument started when black slaves were imported to America (unlike white indentured servants, they didn't up and leave when the indenture was over).

The difference, VD, and what seems to have you exercised, is that instead of the targets of your ideology sitting back and meekly taking it, they are arguing back. If you don't want to be called a racist or a sexist, don't act like one. It really is that simple, and those are the least-offensive words for your conduct. (Least is not equal to none.)

"Tolerance" really is a two-way street, just like Christ's commandment to treat others as you would be treated. If you won't extend respect to others, don't expect respect from them.

Blogger Marissa April 25, 2014 2:12 PM  

The less I have done, the bolder they have become.

Some people don't understand live and let live. Which means you can either 1) expel those people, 2) not have live and let live.

Blogger Marissa April 25, 2014 2:12 PM  

For example, the racism argument started when black slaves were imported to America (unlike white indentured servants, they didn't up and leave when the indenture was over).

Why didn't it start when blacks and Arabs enslaved Europeans in far greater numbers?

Anonymous BunnyFartFART April 25, 2014 2:14 PM  

What about homophobes, Chris? When did "homophobia" become thoughtcrime? Can you educate us racists on why you are not an Islamaphobe? Or will you just tell us to shut-up in a long-winded pretentious way?

Anonymous Salt April 25, 2014 2:14 PM  

The Pinkers remind me of the old Soviet system where dissent was met with the Gulag. They badly want LonCon3 as their Duma, the rubber stamp of goodthink. Their charade is pitiful, but the war they're bringing on is real and I don't believe they understand that.

Anonymous BunnyFartFART April 25, 2014 2:15 PM  

"tolerance" means shut up. Got it.

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 2:15 PM  

"Tolerance" really is a two-way street, just like Christ's commandment to treat others as you would be treated. If you won't extend respect to others, don't expect respect from them.

This is a terrible analogy. It's so bad, it directly disproves your point.

Christ said to treat others the way YOU would like to be treated. That's a one directional street. Unilateral kindness.

He did not say to treat them the way they treat you. The golden rule is not a two way street.

A further example: Jesus instructing people to turn the other cheek. He did not say "If someone punches you in the nose, punch them in the nose. But if they turn the other cheek, then you also turn the other cheek".

Turning the other cheek is not a two way street.

Tolerance is not a two way street - by definition

Therefore, those whose highest ideals are tolerance are required to be tolerant of that which they consider intolerant: or they are base hypocrites.

Anonymous JWR April 25, 2014 2:18 PM  

Someone made a good point about racism being started when white men created slavery and subjugated People of Color.

white men, such as here, cannot take the moral high ground when they have benefitted from thousands of years of evil.

Anonymous alexander April 25, 2014 2:20 PM  

Indeed. Why didnt it start with say... turks enslaving european christians, and force convert them to serve as cannon fodder. I *feel* like that's a better starting point.

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 2:20 PM  

The difference, VD, and what seems to have you exercised, is that instead of the targets of your ideology sitting back and meekly taking it, they are arguing back. If you don't want to be called a racist or a sexist, don't act like one. It really is that simple, and those are the least-offensive words for your conduct. (Least is not equal to none.)

"Tolerance" really is a two-way street, just like Christ's commandment to treat others as you would be treated. If you won't extend respect to others, don't expect respect from them.


But they attacked VD before he attacked them. Therefore, they started it.
Therefore, by your (incorrect) interpretation of the tolerance rule, VD doesn't owe them any respect, since they gave none to him. 'If you don't want to be called a half savage don't act like one' is surely as unobjectionable as your own statements. Therefore both the existence and nature of VD's response is wholly justified using your own logic.

So what exactly are you complaining about?

Anonymous Wem April 25, 2014 2:23 PM  

"Why didn't it start when blacks and Arabs enslaved Europeans in far greater numbers?"

The difficulty with using this Arab Trader argument to account for something like the African Transatlantic slave trade is one of degree and magnitude. It also shows a lack of awareness of the scope and dimensions involved.

One way to recognize or begin to appreciate this is to use analogy:

Imagine a small grocery store. Like Groceries ‘R’ Us. They rapidly expand to include other items like clothing, then maybe electrical goods. Other groups watch this and begin to get in on the act. Soon there are lots of small and large Groceries, Clothes and Electrical goods ‘ R ‘ Us all over the country.

Suddenly, there emerges a big, gigantic Groceries ‘R’ Us. Its bigger than anything that has gone before its called Walmart it expands all over the country but then it gets even bigger. It expands to other countries as well. It takes over and swallows up existing Groceries ‘R’ Us. stores all over the planet. It becomes a monster. But because its grown so big and has a branch in every country on the planet it starts to be the main grocery store most people recognize and go to.

Its now hard to remember a time when going to a grocery store didn’t mean going to a Walmart.

The African Transatlantic slave trade became that Walmart. Before this there only used to be Groceries ‘R’ Us and every country had their own one. In fact some still do.



Anonymous SWD April 25, 2014 2:24 PM  

"Why didn't it start when blacks and Arabs enslaved Europeans in far greater numbers?"

Complete ignorance.

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/the-arab-trader-argument/

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 2:24 PM  

Someone made a good point about racism being started when white men created slavery and subjugated People of Color.

Slavery was created by the first humans, who were Africans, if you are an evolutionist.

Even if not, white slavers were only buying existing slaves from the already slavery-practicing (predominantly Muslim) population of Africa - who gleefully enslaved and sold their fellow Africans.

Anonymous Salt April 25, 2014 2:25 PM  

Arguing about "who started it" has one fundamental problem: the racists and sexists started it. ... For example, the racism argument started when black slaves were imported to America

You're wrong. Slavery is not about racism; it's economic. My dog is as much a slave (I bought it, I own it, I feed it, I take care of it, it has no choice) and no one would call me racist towards canines because of it.

Yours is fostering an ill equivalency.

Blogger James Dixon April 25, 2014 2:25 PM  

> ....white men, such as here, cannot take the moral high ground when they have benefitted from thousands of years of evil.

Because obviously no person of color has ever owned a slave, right?

Blogger JartStar April 25, 2014 2:26 PM  

If you don't want to be called a racist or a sexist, don't act like one.

Because Vox's opponents are arguing in good faith.

Anonymous O'Brien April 25, 2014 2:26 PM  

"But they attacked VD before he attacked them."

Um...no.

VD fired the first shot by holding evil opinions. VD's being a racist is an attack on the human race and the soul of every decent human being.

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 2:27 PM  

Also I assume you are aware free blacks living in America bought black slaves from Africa extending as far back as 1654, at least.

Clearly this also bars them from attempting to hold the moral high ground.

Anonymous Joe Dixon April 25, 2014 2:28 PM  

"Because obviously no person of color has ever owned a slave, right?"

Apples and oranges.

white owners treat their slaves like property at best and brutalize them.

Owners of Color treat their slaves like family members and only enslaved prisoners of war or other agressors.

Anonymous Rico April 25, 2014 2:29 PM  

Chris:

Nigga u retarded.

If Vox is somehow responsible for the comments of others from hundreds of years ago why didn't you start with that argument instead of switching to it after being misinformed on the origin of these hostilities?

If retaliation is based on which group started it instead of the actions on the individuals involved then why should I not commit genocide against Haitians for committing genocide against my "people"?

Also Chris they are not arguing back. To argue you require at least two people speaking with a different view point. The McCarthyites refuse to argue, they block all comments or ban those that disagree with them. Only the sexists and racists as you call them are engaging in an argument.

Anonymous Will Best April 25, 2014 2:29 PM  

Someone made a good point about racism being started when white men created slavery and subjugated People of Color.

white men, such as here, cannot take the moral high ground when they have benefitted from thousands of years of evil.


This is why people shouldn't be taught history in public schools. Slavery has existed for all of recorded human history. Whites were however the first to declare slavery immoral, and the only group of people to do much of anything to get rid of it. Whites should take pride in what they did, but that would mean that we would have to recognize that in order to put slavery onto its deathbed we had to impose our cultural values on the rest of the world, which we all know is an inherently bad thing to do unless it involves killing babies or sticking your dick in another man's butt.

Anonymous SWD April 25, 2014 2:30 PM  

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/the-arab-trader-argument/

Anonymous FP April 25, 2014 2:30 PM  

"Now you have to ask yourself what is important to you?"

Were-seals! 50 shades of T-rex porn! According to many book sellers that seems to be what "most of fandom" wants these days.

Anonymous RedJack April 25, 2014 2:30 PM  

They view Vox and Larry as a threat. They thought the had the whole thing under control, and the narrative set in stone. Having a badthink author not only be successful (which they can explain by only selling to other badthinks), but being nominated for a Hugo is a blow to their worldview. They are not capable of comprehending that they are the best, brigthest and most in control.

They will move to change the rules so only a selected panel gets to nominate and vote on the awards, or scrap it all together.

Anonymous Arcturus Rann April 25, 2014 2:31 PM  

"White men, such as here, cannot take the moral high ground when they have benefitted from thousands of years of evil."

I'll let you in on a little secret sparky; all societies have benefited from evil, horrendous and objectionable acts, even the people of color.

A white man today in the United States is no more responsible for antebellum slavery than an African of today is responsible for his ancestors who willingly sold their people off in the first place.

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 2:32 PM  

.VD fired the first shot by holding evil opinions.

That don't sound very tolerant. Such intolerance is an attack on the human race and the soul of every decent human being.

However, the only claims I've seen to show that Vox is a racist was his response to Jemisin, which only occurred after she failed to extend respect to him and tolerate him, by attacking his beliefs. (Which, according to arguments you all have made up thread, clearly absolves Vox of a responsibility to be tolerant and respectful himself)

It obviously therefore cannot be a reason for her attack in the first place.

Anonymous SWD April 25, 2014 2:33 PM  

"If retaliation is based on which group started it instead of the actions on the individuals involved then why should I not commit genocide against Haitians for committing genocide against my "people"?"

That was justified. the white plantation owners started it by enslaving the People. Also, only white men were liquidated. white girls were allowed to live if they would do the right thing and marry a Man of Colour

Anonymous Salt April 25, 2014 2:34 PM  

VD fired the first shot by holding evil opinions

What opinion did VD offer that was that first shot? Come on now, you can't hide behind your generality.

Anonymous patrick kelly April 25, 2014 2:35 PM  

@JWR: "white men created slavery and subjugated People of Color."

You gotta be trolling, right?

The Arabs and Africans created slavery, even based empires on it, Europeans (white guys) just adopted, improved and instituionalized it for a couple of centuries.

"People of color" were savagely engaging in brutal slavery and subjugation of each other long before the white men came along to dominate them by the same means. You're just jealous they did it better than you...hahahahahahha....

Cry me a river of bunny tears........

Anonymous Scintan April 25, 2014 2:37 PM  

Calling somebody a racist who advocates racial segregation isn't an attack - it's a statement of fact.

So we've got a professional writer who doesn't even know what racism means, doesn't understand time differences, and thinks "attacks" aren't "attacks" if they are made by lefties.

This will end well.

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 2:37 PM  

Owners of Color treat their slaves like family members and only enslaved prisoners of war or other agressors.

Firstly, that is objectively false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

Secondly, are you saying that if white slavers raiding African villages categorized all their slaves as prisoners of war you'd be ok with it?

Why would anyone treat a prisoner of war or an aggressor as a family member? You don't seem to be able to grasp that the two sides of your argument contradict each other.

You would have been better off trying a lie such as " Owners of Color treat their slaves like family members and only enslaved people voluntarily selling themselves into slavery to pay debts".

Anonymous zen0 April 25, 2014 2:38 PM  

JWR exposes ignorance of a half-savage nature

"Someone made a good point about racism being started when white men created slavery and subjugated People of Color."

(stamps foot)



In the age of the internet, ignorance of history is no excuse to make stupid statements:

In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.


Origins of the Slave Trade

The civil rights movement of the 1960's have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn's The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.


No excuse for you JWR

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 2:40 PM  

That was justified. the white plantation owners started it by enslaving the People

You are misinformed. The People started it by invading Iberia in the 8th century. Clearly the actions of those white plantation owners was justified as a particularly long lasting facet of the reconquista.

Anonymous Salt April 25, 2014 2:40 PM  

" Owners of Color treat their slaves like family members and only enslaved people voluntarily selling themselves into slavery to pay debts"

That's not slavery. It's contractual.

Anonymous Salt April 25, 2014 2:42 PM  

No excuse for you JWR

It's his talking point.

Blogger Dewave April 25, 2014 2:42 PM  

That's not slavery. It's contractual.

That's a complete non-sequitur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

Anonymous Josh April 25, 2014 2:44 PM  

Evil white Christian males ended slavery.

You're welcome.

Anonymous Anonymous April 25, 2014 2:44 PM  

Every now and then, a post like this one gets linked to from some lefty sites where the inhabitants have never met a real live right-wing thinker before. They swoop in confidently and start making declarations about White Privilege or whatever that never fail to bring nodding and murmurs of agreement in their Womyn's Studies classes or when they're passing the bong around the dorm room and planning Utopia. Unfortunately, it's always the same tired nonsense that we've heard and refuted a hundred times before. It gets to the point where responding to them feels like beating a dead horse, like you run out of different ways to keep making the same easy points and might as well cut-and-paste from last time.

So disappointing.

Anonymous Scintan April 25, 2014 2:46 PM  

D:

Arguing about "who started it" has one fundamental problem: the racists and sexists started it. These arguments did not start when Vox Day signed onto the Internet. For example, the racism argument started when black slaves were imported to America (unlike white indentured servants, they didn't up and leave when the indenture was over).

The difference, VD, and what seems to have you exercised, is that instead of the targets of your ideology sitting back and meekly taking it, they are arguing back. If you don't want to be called a racist or a sexist, don't act like one. It really is that simple, and those are the least-offensive words for your conduct. (Least is not equal to none.)

"Tolerance" really is a two-way street, just like Christ's commandment to treat others as you would be treated. If you won't extend respect to others, don't expect respect from them.


That is one of the stupidest posts ever made on the internet. My dog might be able to type up a more compelling, and accurate, argument.

Anonymous patrick kelly April 25, 2014 2:48 PM  

"might as well cut-and-paste from last time."

That's all they're doing, and likely really believe they've got some new gotcha' no-one else has discussed for centuries....kind of like anti-theist evangelists that drop by from time to time...

Blogger Danby April 25, 2014 2:50 PM  

white men, such as here, cannot take the moral high ground when they have benefitted from thousands of years of evil.

Now you piss me off. In what way have I ever benefited from my skin color? I was born into a dirt-poor family with an alcoholic father. i had to fight my way out, every step of the fscking way. Not just against both the white trash and "vibrant" bullies, thieves and muggers, but against the attitudes and lies in my own head that were holding me back. I have gotten nothing from nobody, and growing up in a very liberal and anti-rascist place in the '70s, every time there was a chance to give a Black or Asian person and advantage over me, I was officially discriminated against, with the approval of leftist idiots like you.

Because it's okay to discriminate against me, look at my face. I've obviously had life handed to me on a fscking silver platter, unlike someone really oppressed. Unlike, say Obama, who grew up rich in Jakarta and Hawaii, and had every opportunity handed to him because of his color.

The narrative you've been fed is straight bullshit. And you just lick that shit right up.

Fscking idiot.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 25, 2014 2:50 PM  

So, "racist" and "sexist" are not derogatory terms for a person, in your opinion? No they are not derogatory. They reflect behavior that society condemns, but the terms are as non-derogatory as one can get when referring to "bad" behavior.

But Chris, if the terms are hurtful to the person, then what right does society have to use them? Isn't that just a case of an oppressive majority using dog-whistles to other the victim? Even if it's not intentional? If the last 40 years have taught us anything, it's got to be that "derogatory" is in the ear of the hearer. You can't go around speaking from a position of privilege in ways that hurt the less-privileged. I'm ashamed - at least shocked - that you would condone something that might be considered hate speech.

Anonymous Salt April 25, 2014 2:50 PM  

That's not slavery. It's contractual.

That's a complete non-sequitur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery


I'm not being contradictory.

Blogger slarrow April 25, 2014 2:50 PM  

To be fair, Chris Gerrib did indeed read Vox's work, he did critique it, and he did come over here to defend his position. So kudos to him for that. Indeed, I thank him profusely for doing so because in showing that he judged Vox on literary merit, he conclusively demonstrated that he has no judgment whatsoever as to what constitutes "merit".

To wit, he reviewed Vox's short story along with Mary Robinette Cowal's The Lady Astronaut of Mars and called it A Clinic On How To Write A Short Story. He summarized Lady Astronaut as "lady astronaut decides whether or not to go on one last mission." It's not. It's "woman wants blessing on choosing career over family, again." The "astronaut" and "Mars" parts have nothing on the "lady" part; the Mars setting is wasted, and the "mission" could have been anything that the lady (a) wanted to do and that (b) would take her away from her dying husband.

The story is clumsy and frankly horrific. It introduces Dorothy Gale from Kansas as the astronaut's doctor but makes not the slightest reference to Oz (which would have been a far more fruitful decision: the girl who went off-world somehow in Oz ends up off-world on Mars, which might make an interesting story); she might as well be Denise Windward from Nebraska. The mission the astronaut takes is dangerous and almost certain to cause cancer, but the lady's desire to do it isn't from any hope to advance civilization or protect other people from danger but rather because she just wanted to be in space again. Nothing grand or virtuous, just personal desire, but she feels nagging guilt over abandoning her dying husband. Happily, everyone wants her to go: her old boss, the PR guy, her doctor, and blessedly, her husband who has no trouble telling her to follow her dream again and leave him to die. And this is what Gerrib considers, "a clinic on how to write a short story"?

By contrast (and to bring this back on-topic), Gerrib's one-line treatment of Vox's story is "elf finds friend" and can't even figure out what the conflict is. He thinks 3rd person is a bad choice for a short story because it creates "emotional distance that isn't needed." He says the Lady Astronaut presents characters with backstory while Vox doesn't, neglecting both the fact that Vox's piece is set in a world that constitutes backstory and the fact that (spoiler alert) the bulk of the tale actually IS backstory. He also makes clumsy mistakes like whether characters show up again later or expresses incredulity that it's hard to tell a man from an elf at a distance at dusk.

And so Gerrib misses the heart of the tale: whether the Other is a person. The point, it seems to me, of the third person narrative is to establish how alien the elf is and consider whether someone so different can indeed be a person, can have a soul, can be something with whom you can form a relationship based on trust and mutual respect. It's possible, not certain, and in doing so indicates a transcendence that rises above real and severe differences. And the pinkshirts' response to all has been to speak in the voice of Mastema rather than Bessarias.

Turns out that it's not just Vox's nomination as such that exposes them. It's his story as well, the one they either won't read or can't understand.

Anonymous Harold Carper April 25, 2014 2:53 PM  

VD fired the first shot by holding evil opinions. VD's being a racist is an attack on the human race and the soul of every decent human being.

The collective IQ of the human race just dropped 5 points.

Anonymous kh123 April 25, 2014 2:54 PM  

"Tolerance is a two-way street; stop talking about the "Pink Brigade" and the rest of that rot, and perhaps people will be more inclined to ignore your own political agenda."

Rainbow Brigade then. Accuracy and all that.

And they might, just might, not initiate professional witch hunts and speech policing.

Against you, anyhow.

Anonymous Scintan April 25, 2014 2:55 PM  

So Chris Gerrib is a professional author who doesn't know the meaning of "derogatory", doesn't understand what racism actually is, can't write a proper analogy, and is too blind to see that his positions are completely colored by his approach, because he can't even make a halfhearted attempt at objectivity.

This will end well.

Blogger Unknown April 25, 2014 2:55 PM  

@Chris Gerrib
I assume Chris supports the women's vote... But then...

Why are you denying babies the right to vote? Shouldn't babies be allowed to vote to protect their interests?

Anonymous morbido April 25, 2014 2:55 PM  

If we just kill all the crackers and honkies (or at least the male ones) then the problem is solved right?

Anonymous G April 25, 2014 2:57 PM  

Chris Gerrib is a WHITE guy: http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/45252106/10131124

He's attacking Vox, a person of colour.

Chris Gerrib = RACIST!

Anonymous Andy April 25, 2014 2:57 PM  

O'Brien, are you joking? Because that's the same name as the evil politico in 1984. If your being serious it's mighty ironic.

1 – 200 of 369 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts