I was going to drop the Hugos for a while and then Eric Flint plopped this piece of true douchery out of his blog today. I’m sorry, but this is about the largest piece of self justification and just plain crap that I have ever seen. If you read Eric’s books and of the 50 or so he’s written I think I have at least 45 of them, you don’t see any of the kind of narcissistic attempt to say that “I must be right and see, I can twist things around like a pretzel to make me right.” Add to that that he beats on his friends to do that. So why does he do that sort of thing on his blog?
Especially when he’s just parroting the unwisdom of the very unwisse. I mean seriously, Eric, you need to find better sources. Mr. Wisse is a wannabe Marxist who hasn’t got the maturity of a five year old.
Eric, you need to start looking other places than straight party kicker party line. This is bigger than you seem to understand.
Here’s Brad’s Response.
Now, a couple of weeks ago I made a very strong statement to Eric as to what I thought he owed Brad Torgerson as a friend, if nothing else. I was taken to task by the puppy kickers because I felt that Eric should have taken a different stance because of that relationship. Apparently to a puppy kicking CHORF nothing matters except your devotion to them and the cause of message laden bad SFF. I still think that there are certain things more important than politics. Like friends who will back you up when things go to pot.
I don’t know what Eric expects to gain by beating Brad like this. Is it harking back to his union thug days where they beat the poor schlub who voted the wrong way on his card check? All these posts are doing are allowing the puppy kickers to comment “see, see, Eric Flint thinks like we do.” Does Eric really feel the need to renew his lefty credentials that much? At what cost? What about his credentials as human being?
Eric, you said this:
I’m trying to think of a more polite term than “ludicrous,” but I honestly can’t. And the main reason it’s ludicrous is that the villains Torgersen points to—to remind you, it’s all the pros: “editors, authors, artists, and publishers”—don’t decide who gets the Hugo awards in the first place.
That decision is made by the fans, not the professionals. So the charge advanced by Torgersen only makes sense if the real source of the leftist rot is the very people he’s trying to persuade to stop being a lot of rotten leftists.
I think you have gotten to the heart of the problem. The Hugo Awards are supposed to be a fan award. But the way the system works is very vulnerable to misuse. Especially by interested parties. The typical numbers of nominating votes have been miniscule and I imagine that the temptation was rather overwhelming. After all Pan MacMillan probably buys about 100 attending memberships for WorldCon just for staff and authors. Additional supporting memberships are chump change to any advertising organization. Looking at the Hugo Nominations and it’s pretty obvious what was going on. Instead of being a fan award the Hugos had become the award for Tor and some others, with many popular fan choices not being on the table if they weren’t deemed appropriate by the small group of trufen who just coincidently worked at Pan Macmillan of were members of the NESFA. That’s probably why we haven’t seen a successful NYC WorldCon bid since 1967. The trufen likes their travel vouchers.
The CHORFs in NY publishing have been able to have their own way vis a vis the Hugos because They had a vested interest in the outcomes and could, afford to make trips to all the Worldcons because they weren’t paying the bills or they could afford to pay them. The one time I’ve been to a Worldcon it was over $500 in hotels and registration and I was just coming from VA to Baltimore. The typical fan can’t afford to buy multiple Worldcons or don’t want to spend all their vacation money just for a smallish SF con. So more and more, for the last 20 years or so the Hugos have been decided by a small group of cliqueish group of mostly publisher employees centered more or less around Tor. These are the Trufans of Worldcon that tell the rest of us what we should read. And being where they were and who they worked for, “rotten leftist” is the default mode of thought.
Frankly anybody who supports the casual tossing around of stuff like “Neo-Nazi” and “unrepentantly racist” simply because they disagree is about as rotten as it gets. They seem comfortable with that though. Like elites they seem unable to understand the consequences of their actions. As far as they are concerned it’s Ok to hurt people as long as only the right people get hurt.
We should remember what people have paid when people dehumanize people as a group or individuals and then turn the terrors of the state or the group on them. Once somebody is made “other” it’s awfully easy to make them disappear. Words mean things and frequently they are used to hurt and destroy. When somebody says that somebody else is not a true member of a group they are setting up the othering. This is exactly the time when people MUST speak out.
Calling people things like “Nazi” is something the kind of people who want make sure anybody that is not a member of their tribe are othered as fast as possible do. It’s a way of destroying any possibility of dialog before it starts. After all who would have a dialog with racist Nazis. Those people are evil, right?
Especially when you use the term, but seemingly have no clue as to what NAZI politics actually look like. I mean seriously, would Jews hang around a Neo Nazi. Would a true Neo Nazi publish Jews. Or Catholics like Mr. Wright for that matter? As a student of history and some of the writings of REAL NAZIs I don’t think that that’s likely. On the other hand the sort of stuff the puppy kickers say and write reminds me more than a little of that stuff I saw in the NAZI Party English language magazine from the 1940’s.
The problem is that sometimes you need to dialog. As Mr. Modena did to the Israelis in this wonderful post. So he properly apologized and meant it. From that apology and the fact that he meant it, Modena was able to build a long and mutually valuable friendship between Israel and the Phillipines.
The fact is that the puppy kickers are just part of a larger issue that’s going around. That’s the issue of terror to suppress speech. The SJWs driving this have gone far beyond any reason or even sanity. Their primary method when losing an argument is to go to nuclear attack mode and go for maximum damage. With a ton of lies of course. The truly sick part is that they actually believe their own lies. They will believe them even when confronted the truth.
Like a victim of Soviet Socialism the target is stuck with the lie. After a point the target may honestly start believing the lie themselves. How many inmates in the gulags actually did this even when confronted with the reality. I mean you still run into the stories from time to time of the inmates writing to Stalin to fix things, totally believing that what happened to them could be corrected if Stalin knew. Stalin knew and what happened to those poor souls was the point.
Why do these women make these stories up? It’s pretty simple actually. It’s taking advantage of cultural mores and the fact that most men won’t hit a woman. So a woman can make the most extreme accusations and for the most part be given the benefit of the doubt. The flip side of this though is that the woman has for the most part to be telling the truth. If she screams rape there damn well be some brute of a man with his pants down. But the extreme feminists are breaking those little rules and lying about among other things, rape.
They’ve also managed to create a hypersensitive atmosphere where comedians and GOHS are disinvited to cons because of things they might say. To a greater degree, across the culture people are being smeared for what they might think, are told that certain ideas are so far out of bounds that not only cannot they be discussed, but even the possibility of thinking them is a microaggresion that cannot be tolerated. Thus we are at the point where history can’t be taught and purely technical presentations can’t be presented at technical conferences because somebody might be offended by the presenters politics.
It’s reached the point where no matter how high your esteem in credential in a field, no matter how esteemed you are, the slightest comment will be an excuse for the harpies to descend and rip you to pieces.
Meanwhile the harpies and their trolls know that their threats and screams will not be silenced by a culture full of people afraid that they might be next. No matter how vile their utterances, no matter how bold there lies, how false their accusations they know that a cowed populace and media will not stand up and face them. They know that, in fact that the media will amplify the lie and give them credence.
It’s gotten to the point where nobody and nothing is safe anymore. Just wearing the wrong shirt at the wrong time can be a trigger if you happen to walk by a camera o don’t even know about or talk to a newsperson wearing it. Don’t even think of having wrongfun, in your wrongboat, being the wrongclass reading the wrongbooks, let alone worst of all having the wrongideas. You will take what the cool kids tell you can have and like it, you prole dimwit.
If I were to accept SJW logic my thinking might go something like this:
I know that, as a white male, I am immediately suspect and supposedly guilty of crimes I didn’t even think of, let alone commit. by my very nature I am guilty from birth In this new era I should be glad that I’m even allowed any kind of life at all. After all I and the rest of all the white men had all those advantaqes and what have we white men as class done with them. All those great things we have were built with our use of oppression or ripped from our victims. All of the worlds horrors and terrors have come from white males even in paces where a white male has never been.
How can you argue with people who think that way? Realistically there’s no way to argue with people that think of you as evil for merely existing. You can’t even defend yourself because even speaking out is indefensible in their eyes. That’s the core of the terror, the dehumanization. That’s the way the terror has operated since the French Revolution. It’s the way the Communists in the Soviet Union operated. It’s the methods that Alinsky espoused. Never admit the opposition’s humanity, ostracize and terrorize.
The problem is that the fear stifles. Like the man and his sign, people in these fear ridden societies get twisted by the fear. They stop being creative. They stop achieving. They stop hoping. They stop working. The look for any out, including turning to drink and drugs. The constant depressing ruins. You see these wherever socialism and it’s fear based culture exist. It’s amazing how quickly the “just get along” attitude sets in along with the “what’s in it for me” self centeredism and “don’t trust anybody.”
What you don’t see is growth, prosperity or creativity. When you take the fruits of somebody’s efforts, any reward for what you do the incentive to go beyond the bare minimum disappears. Even if you are driven to create, as most creative seem to be, you don’t challenge yourself and express yourself in ways that you hope nobody notices. Because you don’t own anything, even yourself there’s no incentive to grow. I’ve seen it. I see it in place like Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. I’ve seen and heard about the consequences from my friends who’ve escaped those places.
I know that there is no way I, at least will want to live in those kinds of dead or dying places. What amazes me is that so many fight so hard to create that kind of culture. They come up with a with all those slogans about fundamental transformation or green revolution, all the while plotting to “bring the evil system down, man.” They’ve got Marx, Ayles, Cloward, Piven, Alinsky and yes, Clinton and Obama but never seem to have an Edison, Carnegie, Ford, Morgan or Westinghouse. All they can do is ruin and destroy, yet so many follow them to that destruction.
In end Progressivism eats it’s own. The SJWs devour everything in their lunacy. This happens over and over, Fundamental transformation after revolution starts with flowers and bright promise and end with terror, poverty and despair. With no laws and no social net, every Progressive society ends up the same way. You would think that people would learn. But know we keep having to keep letting the gods of the copybook heading have their way with us, to our sorrow.
Ok, Eric you ask this question. It’s actually a pretty good one:
Sadly for the Sad Puppy thesis, the author is Gene Wolfe—who is politically quite conservative, a devout Catholic, and a man whose fiction is usually in one way or another illuminated by his religious outlook. And who is also, without a doubt, one of the half dozen finest literary authors in the history of fantasy and science fiction.
And someone forget to tell me—and Mercedes Lackey, and Steven Brust, and plenty of other leftwing SF authors—since none of us write very much in the way of what’s generally considered “literary fiction.” In my case, only two novels out of almost fifty could really qualify as “literary fiction” and then only if you’re willing to allow that a comic surrealist treatment of Karl Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 infused with affectionate riffs on the works of Joseph Conrad and Herman Melville are anything but lunacy masquerading as fiction. But one of the books—that would be Forward the Mage—has a grammatically valid (albeit insane) sentence that’s 430 words long and the other novel—that would be The Philosophical Strangler—has a serial murderer for a hero. I mean, how literary can you get?
Still, that leaves forty-six or so novels of mine not one of which can be considered anything but stout story-telling of Ye Olde School.
Why weren’t Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Brust or Ms. Lackey on the slate? Well, Eric, there’s this thing called google.com and if you type in author’s names you will find out all sorts of interesting information. Like what books were eligible for what year. Here’s a surprise. Gene Wolfe didn’t publish anything for 2014, Steve Brust published “Hawk” Mercedes Lackey published “Red as Blood” which was more romance/horror than fantasy, let alone SF, you published two 163x books and “Cauldron of Ghosts”, which if the number of times I keep rereading it is any indication, certainly belonged on the ballot.
But you can’t blame Brad for what does or does not go on a ballot that he had nothing to do with. After all the Neilson Haydons and the rest of the fine people at Tor have had almost thirty years to put Mr. Brust into nomination. So how is Brust not getting nominated now Brad’s fault?
Eric, I think you are grasping at intellectual straws here. Defending ACORN? Really? I think you know that I mean, seriously, you last piece was either parroting that dimwit Wisse or came straight off some puppy kicker journolist that Vox either hasn’t found, yet or is saving for later. I think that’s why you came in on my post the way you did. Frankly I would stop listening to people who call your friends “unrepentantly racist, misogynist, and homophobic.” How stupid is that? Is Brad a racist? Is Dave Freer? Mad Mike? Uncle Timmy? Sarah Hoyt? Do you really think Larry is?
Eric, I think it’s time you stopped arguing the case for the puppy kickers. After all the case only consists of mindless harpy screaming and lies. If you just parroting the lies, all you will end up doing is wrecking your reputation. When that happens who do you think will stand by you? Your friends? Definitely. The puppy kickers you are attacking your friends for? Do you really want your reputation to depend on the kind of people that throw accusations of racism around like pebbles? Just remember that the revolution eats it’s own, always.