He didn’t–because nobody did.
Could you highlight where, in that block of text, Torgerson mentions that Vox Day is not one of the members of the “ELoE” that made up the SP3 “brain trust” which discussed and selected the SP3 slate?
He doesn’t think condemning someone who thinks blacks are subhuman savages, women shouldn’t have the right to vote, and the Taliban were justified in their attempt to murder Malala Yousafzai is the morally right thing to do, yet had no problem whatsoever going after John Scalzi.
It would seem that his morals are somewhat skewed.
It gets some mileage from me. Which is why I’m baffled by the inarticulate complaints about how the awards have been made pre-puppy.
But it’s the denial that proves the conspiracy!!!11!!!
Yet he has no problem calling anyone who disagrees with him, “Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics” or repeatedly referencing that past Hugo winners and nominees were selected because of “affirmative action”. Odd that.
I think that several of the puppies are Wound Collectors. This came up on File770 and it makes a lot of sense with regard to Larry and Brad. Basically they view anything as a slight and use that to justify their lashing out at other people. They can’t believe that people simply disagree with their taste-no those folks must be lying, there must be a secret conspiracy, the results are a personal insult to Larry and Brad etc.
For me, I’m still ticked that City of Stairs didn’t make it to the ballot. I liked Goblin Emperor and thought it was quite refreshing after the grimdark fest that we’ve been on. I agree that the story was resolved too easily. I couldn’t get into *Three Body Problem. I found the prose and characterization to be too flat but I can understand why it was Hugo winner. Personally, I preferred Ancillary Sword to Ancillary Justice and I put it in first place. But Ancillary Justice was definitely the well deserved winner for last year. I picked it up because of the blurb about the woman who was a spaceship and it blew me away.
There were over a dozen articles like the original EW one (before EW had to retract it) that I
[quote from the archive]
(Hugo Awards voting campaign sparks controversy | EW.com):
That was the line repeated over and over.
OK, so, why are the Sad Puppies even relevant? The fact of the matter is that there’s a group called the Rabid Puppies who hijacked the nomination process, and this group is reprehensible and made reprehensible picks, and the majority of the fan community responded to this reprehensible group by denying them awards. Is there any dispute of this summary? Is there anyone who cares to defend the Rabid Puppies?
Everything about this whole Hugo thing can be explained, most simply, by simple disagreements in taste… The Puppies didn’t like the books and authors that had been winning. And through no conspiracy at all, most sci-fi and fantasy fans who vote for Hugos just didn’t like the books and stories that the Puppies nominated. It sucks for Larry and Brad, but it turns out that most of the voters didn’t like the stuff they did.
But there is no denial. That’s the point.
The other members of the self-described “ELoE” made it clear that Vox Day was one of their number. They also made it clear that the “ELoE” (which, again, they described as including Day) discussed and selected the nominees for the slate. Never, at any point, did the other members say anything remotely resembling “Vox Day was never a member of our group that discussed and selected nominees for the slate and Vox Day did not help us discuss and select nominees for the slate”.
On the contrary, they went to great lengths to avoid saying that, dancing around the issue with things like “Vox Day ran his own separate campaign” (as if Day being part of the group that picked nominees for the SP slate and then using that slate to run his own parallel campaign are mutually exclusive things) and mealy-mouthed refusals to separate themselves and their campaign from Day.
And yet here I am, attacking you for not denouncing Vox Day. Which you are not doing.
You can’t get away with it. We will bring it up every time you post. You and your ilk are proud enablers of and minions to someone who is homophobic, sexist, racist, and a world class bigot.
Most people here are seeing these names for the first time. But for me this is the third major time Vox Day (Ted Beale) has caused a shitstorm in the field. I checked him out very carefully: went to his blog, read his arguments, read his opponents, looked at his public statements, followed him on writers boards not accessible from the outside. When Larry Correia calls him Stalin he understates the case. You have to live with Beale’s comments day after day to realize how deeply you despise him.
Yet Correia refused to denounce him. Rick here refuses to denounce him. Why?
This whole kerfuffle just proves that dogs drool, cats rule. The puppies are losers by any definition of the word and deserve all the scorn and derision they get.
I admit, I’ve been reading the whole thing for it’s entertainment purposes…
Here is a fairly decent timeline of the whole thing, if anyone’s interested.
I admit, I have a hard time taking the “Sad Puppies” seriously when it basically started with Larry Correira (who seems to be a great big baby and doesn’t seem to understand that the Hugos are not t-ball - you don’t really get a participation trophy, really you don’t!) trying to whine his way into one. A typical Sad Puppy to me is Lou Antonelli - all thrilled to be nominated (and didn’t care how he got it); did some burbling about the evils that are sci-fi elite; wrote a letter to the Spokane police chief saying David Gerrold (the MC) was a threat to him (the police apparently went ‘Huh?’); Antonelli then announced on a podcast that he had reported Gerrold to the police, Sasquan said ‘Dude, not cool; maybe you shouldn’t come’, he wept crocodile tears and apologized and got to come; was surprised that Gerrold didn’t want to shake his hand, and then was even more surprised that GRRM thought he was an asshole and didn’t invite him to his party. The echo chamber of his blog is patting him on the back for being a good guy.
To be fair, apparently the leader of the anti-puppies is Satan’s stand-in, John Scalzi, but I’m afraid his blog has entertained me for years.
My favorite part (which I admit was fairly predictable) is that now that the puppies have been shown that they are not the majority of World Con fans, they now declared that the Hugo Awards are in fact worthless and no one would want that damn things and anyhow, they must destroyed because since they lost because not fair somehow.
I’m not implying, I’m stating it outright
He’s mistaken. Portuguese is not Hispanic
And how convenient to cloak oneself as a minority as a defence against accusations of that.
Because he, himself, says he’s Portuguese. That’s not Hispanic.
I’ve seen him describe himself as “Latin,” but does he really describe himself as “Hispanic”? My suspicion is that people got confused between “Latin” and “Latino” and then between “Latino” and “Hispanic.”
But even if he’s described himself as Hispanic, IT DOESN’T MATTER, because very, very few people if any have described the puppy brigade as old white men, and the very few that have are clearly mistaken, end of story.
[quote=“emarkp, post:326, topic:716968”]
There were over a dozen articles like the original EW one (before EW had to retract it) that I
So wait–the only cite you have is in an article that was retracted? Are you effing kidding?
Neat little summary over on NeoGAF:
I figured you were capable of looking for more examples if you wanted them. The EW article was so wrong it was disproven just by looking at the names on the SP slate. Just like several factual claims in this thread are proven false by the first page of a google search.
My apologies for not storing each example of libel as they came out so I could report them to you nearly 5 months later. EW corrected their story after they were contacted about the word “libel”, btw.
Correia enumerated some of the libel squad at the time, you’re free to look at those outlets.
I doubt you will, because you’ve expressed no interest in actual facts, and no evidence that fact would change your narrative. I’m glad to know who the puppy-kickers are, because it’s so clear that they need to be opposed.
Behold, the warrior for justice (in SF society).
So because someone makes a stupid claim, and they don’t cite it, and the only cite you can find is a since-retracted and removed article, and I don’t want to waste time searching for (what I believe to be nonexistent) evidence for someone else’s claims, I must be opposed? I’m the one not interested in actual facts?
Whatever you say, buddy.
Am I the only one who thinks that “Social Justice Warriors” would be a great name for a super-hero group?