You Must Denounce!!!

Recently, when I posted the File 770 link in a private group somebody pointed out this comment:

Here’s the key part:

Archived in case of deletion:

@Brian Z: My rule is that if you’re on a slate, and you tell the slate-makers to fuck off, and do so before nominations close, where I can hear it, and in stern enough terms that I think you mean it, then I won’t hold it against you. That goes for Scalzi, or Weisskopf, or even JCW.

Laertes on August 25, 2015 at 8:01 am said:
“@Brian Z: My rule is that if you’re on a slate, and you tell the slate-makers to fuck off, and do so before nominations close, where I can hear it, and in stern enough terms that I think you mean it, then I won’t hold it against you. That goes for Scalzi, or Weisskopf, or even JCW.”
Yes. As soon as the next Puppy slates (or “recommendation lists” from known slate supporters) come out, we first need to make sure that everyone on a slate or slate-equivalent knows about it and understands what is involved (including the media creators; perhaps GRRM could help get the word to them). Those who do not want to be part of a Social Injustice movement should say so, loud and clear, as soon as possible Then, if their work is good enough, they can still be nominated legimitately and have a fair shot at a genuine award.
I have never nominated anything for a Hugo before because my reading tends to lag a year or more behind publication dates, but I will make an exception at least for the coming year. If I think that an eligible work is worthy of consideration, then I will certainly nominate it even if I haven’t read/seen much else in the category. Other nominators will take up the slack—we are all in this together.
When it comes to the final vote, I will follow the same policy that I did this year and rank No Award above anything on a slate, unless the creator has explicitly withdrawn from the slate. Everything else is judged by merit (and this year I did no-award one thing that I thought was not good enough even though it was unslated).
Karl-Johan Norén on August 25, 2015 at 8:02 am said:
“Regarding Toni Weisskopf, I consider her one of the key enablers of the Puppy narrative. A large part of the mindset that went into the puppies found a fertile ground and safe haven on Baen’s Bar (granted, this started even before Jim Baen’s death), which Weisskopf is responsible for.”
Yes, yes, yes. I consider her to be very much a guilty party, the formerly welcome guest who brought in her untrained pets and let them poop on the carpet while giggling at how cute they are and praising them for their performance.
The other thing I dislike about Toni Weisskopf is that she achieved her present position as a direct result of her personal relationship with her late boss. This is no secret; I believe it is even on her Wikipedia page. One the one hand, I think that people’s sex lives are their own business; but on the other hand, I really despise sexual cronyism in professional settings, having run up against it several times in mundane life as well.
I cannot imagine any circumstances in which I would vote for her for anything, although of course life is full of surprises.
Now those guys are just commenters on Mike’s site, how about Steve Davidson and Amazing Stories:

If nominees and potential nominees take a strong personal stand against their inclusion on a slate ballot, they will provide fandom with the “excuse” it needs to justify voting for a work that appears on a slate.

I strongly urge anyone who might even be remotely considered for an award next year to make a public statement regarding their rejection of slates.  It might go something like this:

“I reject the use of voting slates, bloc voting and campaigning for any award I may be considered for now or in the future.  Organized campaigning for awards devalues the award, the participation of those voting and the entire process.  Any award I might win that results from campaigning would also be devalued.

I will not participate in voting slates, bloc voting or campaigning on behalf of others or myself.

I do not give anyone permission to include my works on a voting slate, either because they genuinely believe it should win, or because they are attempting to game a voting system.

Further, should I become aware that I or one of my works has been included on a slate, a voting bloc or in a campaign, I will request that it be removed and will make my request public in the belief that potential voters will respect my intent and will vote accordingly.”

Doing something like this (my wording is not mandatory but I do believe it covers the salient points) publicly should pull the teeth from most of the shenanigans. For those who have accused fandom of being a clique that decides who the Hugo winners will be, the above ought to effectively answer their concerns;  it doesn’t specify what kind of campaigning it refers to (not that I believe there is an SJW cabal).  For those worried that they’ll be stuck on a slate without their knowledge, the above will absolutely insure that such action will be immediately brought to their attention (no need to hunt the internet;  your fans will do it for you) and, of course, the voters will be able to vote for nominees who have made this or a similar statement, regardless of what the troublemakers may do.

This is a common demand from the puppy kickers.  You must denounce!!! No deviation from the party line will be tolerated!!! As loudly as possible so WE that matter can hear it. The rather disgusting sexual innuendos aside and I believe have since been deleted(Mike was very busy deleting) why are we expected to denounce people that like us simply because they disagree with YOU.  Is Toni expected to denounce her authors, editors and friends for some jerks she doesn’t even know exist.  How do you take this SJW litmus test if you don’t even know you need to.

Now where had I heard that sort of thing before?  Well I heard some just this morning. A blog I like ran this rather unpleasant little video about somebody who is admired by SJWs and was very big into Social Justice.  Letting people live their lives, not so much.

You must denounce!!! No deviation from the party line will be tolerated!!! The cry of totaltarians in every time and place.  The outcry of pattern abusers since the beginning of time. It’s not enough to acquiesce, you must always toe the party line whatever it is. No deviations in thought are allowed. Well this sort of thing is just like the pattern abuser blaming the victim, the common pattern with such types.  As far as they are concerned, it’s always the victims fault.

Somehow, there are large numbers of people that think communism is all sweetness and light. They see the shiny rifles and spiffy, but bedraggled revolutionary uniforms on the stalwart revolutionaries and have no clue as to the realities. Here’s Scalzi’s campaign for SFWA president complete with Communist propaganda posters.  Now that may seem fun, but as someone who’s spent years in the same office with Communist victims, I know the truth, which is pretty ugly.

This seems to be in line with what seems to be an attempt to romanticize Communism.  Sort of like this recent reprint of a story in Time magazine.

I’m bewildered at no matter how often the same sort of disasters happen, the same morass of death and destruction, the same cruel dictatorships happen people still walk blindly down the same paths.  It amazes me that people don’t see what they are saying, the effect it has.  They never seem to be able to see past the romantic part of the nebulous thing that somehow believes that you can  change people to whatever you want and demands total obedience.

And if we don’t acquiesce we must be destroyed.  That’s the true message of how the puppy kickers savaged everybody who even got a nomination.  It wasn’t enough that the puppies, lose, their reputations must be damaged, their careers ended and everything they had written tarred with the racism, misogyny, sexism tag.  All over a little stupid hood ornament.

Just because they say they don’t like stories that they can’t even be bothered to read.  I suspect thought that reading is something they don’t really do.  The puppy kickers like to talk about stories but they don’t seem to like to read them very much. Books to them seem to be for advancing the narrative and not just for enjoyment. Frankly it seems as if the puppy kickers just want to use their place in fandom as platform to play Alinsky stuff and hurt people.

The biggest thing they seem to want to do is keep the puppies off the stage at any price.  To deny any alternative voices in SF their place at the table.  That was the message sent at Sasquan.  That was the reason for the Assterisks  passed out the puppies.  That was the purpose of all those surprise and very fishy No Award votes. The puppy kickers understand the need to control the stage and the emotional connections that go with it.

What they missed was that the Sad puppies only nominated people.  And that any award is only valuable for what it represents.  By acting as they have and will continue to act the puppy kickers are only ensuring that the Hugo awards will only be as valued as an old Oldsmobile hood ornament copy made in China out of cheap plastic, with the chrome already flaking off, something eminently disposable.

The puppy kickers are also saying that all too many of us are not fans.  If that’s the way they want it, they may get their wish.  In my case, the number of SFF books I buy has been decreasing  hugely for the last decade or so, and most of the ones I still buy come from Baen.  I’ve been voting with my dollars for some time now and the puppy kickers, though I didn’t know it, have been losing votes the whole time.  I realized how this was when the Irene Gallo boycotts started and I realized that I didn’t have to boycott Tor, because, essentially, I already had.

This is a war the puppy kickers cannot, in the long run, win.  Piss off enough of us, tell us that we can’t participate according to long standing rules and yes we will go away.  But we will take our wallets with us.  Most of the people who participated as puppies don’t make our money from writing or publishing.  We don’t depend on reader’s dollars. The puppy kickers on the other hand, are writers, editors and other publishing industry types.  The kickers need our dollars to survive.  They should have thought about that before lighting off the smear campaigns, calling us nonfans and coming up with wooden buttholes to award our friends.

Apparently Sasquan did well thanks to the additional supporting memberships that the Puppy movement brought in one way or another.  KC may do well.  But if the puppy kickers  keep trying to “fix” the nominations in their favor eventually those memberships will go away, along with the dollars.  Have the kickers even considered what happens then.  Or what happens when even the small number of puppy types just stay away, something that’s becoming easier and easier to do with each passing year.  Will Helsinki be the last Worldcon?

Now the puppy kickers can blame the puppies for messing things up.  But things were messed up before the puppies ever came along.  Readership is declining, the few fans that are left are dropping out, cons are disappearing and the heads at those cons are gray.  Perhaps because the kickers live in the writer-publishing bubble they don’t see what’s happening.  But some of us have.  It’s not just SF fandom where this is happening.  It’s happening across clubs and associations just about everywhere.

Playing stupid political games and demanding orthodoxy only work in a sealed environment like the Communist state the puppy kickers seem to like so much.  Where there is competition Communist entities die fairly quickly.  When there is no competition Communist entities eat themselves by creating the kind of insecure environment of everybody denouncing everybody else.  It’s not a happy place. But that seems to be the norm for puppy kicker types.

It seems like Libs everywhere aren’t happy unless they are causing misery for somebody else.  If not real harm.  They keep calling for diversity, but insist on there not being any deviation from the narrative of the moment.  Most people don’t live their lives that way, constantly looking for the latest dog whistle signals to figure out which way the winds are blowing.  The societies that act that way become insane, like Communist China of North Korea.

What’s happening in fandom is no different. It seems like the puppy kickers have forgotten what this all about.  It’s not about keeping to some political narrative current and mouthing the right words in the right way.  It’s about books that are fun to write and read.  It’s about big visions and colorful characters, no matter what they look like.  It’s about stories that we care about and love.  The puppy kickers seem to have lost that and that’s just sad.  Maybe they need to back off and get some perspective.

Or they could become the topic of a bestselling book written by their worst enemy.  if that fact doesn’t  make them think twice I cant believe that any thing else would.




  1. steve davidson · October 10, 2015

    don’t create a voting slate and there won’t be any issues. Doing that would sure save you a whole heck of a lot of words and links.


    • jccarlton · October 10, 2015

      Why can’t we nominate who we like? How is that different than what you do, Steve? Maybe if your crew would stop threatening people and sending stupid wooden buttholes to innocent nominees we might feel better about this. How about it? And by the way the only “slate” was creation of you puppy kicker’s delusions.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Brad R. Torgersen · October 11, 2015

    Steve is pretending that the Locus list, the Nebula ballot, the various “I liked this, and you should too!” rosters, are magically different somehow. That these things in no way have any influence on the Hugo ballot. Steve is also pretending that the money-larding and influence-buying of publishers like TOR (cough, Nielsen-Hayden, cough) are magically okay, or magically don’t happen, or somehow magically have no influence. In other words, Steve is a truly magical thinker, in addition to being a Puppy-kicker. He’s preaching to the 2,500-person choir who delighted in the distribution of wooden CHORFholes and Noah Wards for Sheila Gilbert, Toni Weisskopf, Mike Resnick, et al.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jccarlton · October 11, 2015

      Brad I’m not sure that it’s even 2500. I keep asking myself where those extra 2000 odd registrations came from. How many of them were sock puppets of one kind or another? To say nothing of the votes that the Sasquan Concom threw out. Still I’m surprised at the lack of reading comprehension of supposedly literate people who can’t seem to get the point. The fact is, if Larry, you, Sarah or anybody else for that matter just wanted to see the Hugos die all we have to do is watch. If there had been no puppy movement, it’s more than likely that Sasquan would have ended up in the red. Now the National Railway Historical Society, which also has a floating convention can afford to do that and make it up form donations. As far as I know, My chapter’s convention may have been the last one in the black. Steam trains are EXPENSIVE. But Worldcon doesn’t have that back up organization and the groups that put together bids have to expect a return or they might as well not do it. I think that Loncon was in the red, and if London can’t bring in a crowd, what can? Worldcon isn’t sustainable with just the clique and they should realize that.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. bkc1066 · October 11, 2015

    The attack on Toni Weiskopf troubles me on several levels….

    Her record, especially since Mr Baens’ death would seem to speak for itself but this person implies she only got the position for… Other considerations… this does not seem to be the case.

    So it must be that the “appearance ” of impropriety is bad by itself, much as the appearance of a lack of independence is a killer for accountants…. but aren’t the Nelson/Haydns married and working for the same company, or at least were working for the same company? …. and since the Mrs. is no longer there, it would seem that she was not as skilled as Ms Weiskopf, so wouldn’t this suggest that there was real unjustified cronyism involved?

    Attacking Ms Weiskopf was truly over the line here…


    • Brad R. Torgersen · October 12, 2015

      Attacking Toni is just proof that the CHORFs have no clue what an actual professional looks like. See, Toni actually works with her authors. She loves this field, and the books are her passion. She is forever cheering her authors to write more, more, more, and she devotes countless hours to helping/grooming her authors to tell more stories, better. There is a reason why Toni’s authors are supremely loyal to her, and to the BAEN label. Despite the fact some other publishers (cough, TOR, cough) have more money. It’s because Toni — and BAEN by extension — is actually worth her salt. I hear nothing but horror stories from the midlisters publishing with that other publisher (cough, TOR, cough) and at this point, you couldn’t pay me enough money to walk beneath the Nielsen-Hayden banner.

      Liked by 1 person

      • jccarlton · October 12, 2015

        Brad, one ting that has kept me from setting and actually doing the work and writing a book is that more than likely I would not be able to fit into a slot at Baen and the others,(cough, PNH, cough) would probably just dump six months or of work into the circular slush bin.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s