To use the words of our generous host, who ordered that?
]]>It's all about undermining his credibility and authority prior to the EU referendum just enough to tilt the balance in favour of an "Out" vote. We know where Rothermere and Murdoch stand on this issue.
]]>Yes. Does it have Adolph Hitler on vibes (looking very relaxed), and Quentin Hogg on piggy-grunts?
OK. My take on the Sad Puppies (and possibly Gamergate as well) is that while there are many unpleasant individuals in their ranks they also contain a lot of non-bigots with honest intentions who are letting themselves being played by bad actors, most notably by Vox Day. Day is indeed a male-supremacist misogynist (as you said) and many other unpleasant things too. But that's not necessarily true of all of the Puppies.
It's in the interests of fandom as a whole to turn as many of these people into part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Othering them works against that.
Does that nake sense? Or am I just being hopelessly naive?
Anyway, I've seen too long on this topic today. Got a a serious backlog of album reviews to finish.
]]>The problem with short fiction is finding good work to nominate. What's a good source of recommendations? Where do you find the good stuff, especially by new authors? Most of the short fiction I've read has been from single-author collections compiled too long after publication for anything to be eligable.
]]>No, I am not saying such a thing, and to imply that I condone the actions of RH is misrepresenting my words.
I was making the point that guilt-by-association cuts both ways. There are still a lot of acolytes and apologists for Requires Hate in fandom.
Slating the way they did it was a dick move and deserved a backlash, and I've never suggested it wasn't. But namecalling and personal smears only serve to fan the flames.
]]>If you're going to start applying purity tests on who's a legitimate part of fandom, exactly where do you draw the line? And does the same apply to Benjanun Sriduangkaew and her supporters?
What happens if next year the Puppies "play by the rules" and still get one or two of their favourites on each ballot? And at least some of those nominations aren't unreadable drivel?
How much of the extreme reaction to the Puppies is down to their use of slates, and how much is down to the fact they represent the wrong political "tribe"?
]]>Alternative getting through to them (or at least some of them) that actually playing fair is the best strategy. Based on this year's results they've probably got the raw numbers to get some of their preferred kind of SF on the ballot without resorting to gaming the system.
]]>Only use an automatic No Award if a slate takes three or more (i.e. more than half) of the slots in a category. Otherwise judge all works on merit.
Of course if a slate gets one or two nominations but doesn't sweep the category, it means either the emotional infant pet carnivores are not voting in lockstep, or some of the works have wider support.
Though it's still acceptable to No Award someone because they're a terrible human being who has damaged to community regardless of the quality of their work. And that goes for Benjanun Sriduangkaew as well as Theodore Beale.
]]>If not, then publishing the numbers will show whether any "spoiler slate" had any effect on the actual nominations, and will save potential spoiler victims from having to withdraw if they had enough votes to make the ballot anyway.
]]>