ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2015 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

What part of "cruelty artist" don't you understand?

Roosh@rooshv
Surprise: one of my committed haters @Popehat is mentally ill, served time in an institution. I wish him the best

 Popehat ‏@Popehat
@rooshv "committed haters" is actually pretty clever.

Popehat ‏@Popehat
.@rooshv Ken isn't the Popehat blogger who hates you. Patrick is the one who hates you, you scrofulous little Ben-wa ball.

Vox Day @voxday
.@Popehat @rooshv Is this "Patrick" an actual person or one of the 16 Personalities of Popehat?
I find it rather astonishing that anyone would be so naive as to imagine, in this day and Information Age, to think that it is a good idea to simultaneously a) be mentally ill and b) play attack dog on the Internet. If being medicated or otherwise under treatment for mental illness meant that one was to be regarded as off limits, it would be impossible to respond to an estimated one-in-five people and four-in-five SJWs. So that's a complete non-starter.

Now, I don't wish disease of any kind on anyone. I never have and never will. I would very much like for everyone, even those who most hate me, to be healthy, happy, and well. But if you have a mental illness and you are foolish enough to attack me, then you can be certain that I will exploit your weakness to whatever extent I happen to find useful or amusing. Why? Because you gave up any claim to my sympathy or civility of your own free will when you decided to attack me or mine without provocation.

My advice to Ken White is threefold:
  1. Get off the Internet for your own good. Seriously. It's no place for the depressed, the bipolar, or the schizophrenic. There is no way the form of conflict-laden communication it fosters will do anything but undermine your mental health.
  2. If you won't do that, then try to stay out of the hot zones. Based on my observations of the behavior of other mentally unstable individuals active on the Internet, at some point your illness is likely to lead you to write checks that your mental stability can't cash.
  3. If you insist on mixing it up on the Internet, then at the very least do not seek out and attack notoriously ruthless individuals like Roosh and me. We won't hesitate to strike at your vulnerabilities and we don't care about the opinion of the delicate souls who will dramatically take to their fainting couches at the horror of it all. Just leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.
My code of behavior is very simple and straightforward. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Start something and I will do my level best to finish it to my satisfaction, no matter how long it takes. So, once you've made it personal, don't whine about how cruelly I take advantage of your feelings of worthlessness or complain about how viciously I exploit your sense of being a failure. All you had to do was leave me alone. And if you can't manage something as simple as that, well, then perhaps you really are a stupid and worthless individual doomed to inevitable failure in life.

If you are weak, then for the love of God and anything else in which you happen to believe, do not attack the strong!

One thing I think might be useful to keep in mind that the genuinely stable and self-confident individual has as much trouble understanding the perspective of the unstable and insecure person as the latter does the former. When I read Ken's post about his breakdown and his struggles, my overwhelming impression was sheer bewilderment. He might as well have written it in Chinese for all that I related to it. And what's more, in writing this post, I begin to understand just how evil and pernicious the behavior of the SJWs who constantly try to spin the false narrative of my incessant failure really is: I now understand that being mentally unstable themselves, they are intentionally attempting to provoke me into a psychological tailspin.

That is foolish for two reasons. First, I'm not susceptible to it. It will never, ever work on me because the effect is precisely the opposite of the one intended. In fact, it's exactly what my track coach at university used to do in order to motivate my sprinters group on speed day. (NB: in the track world, sprinters are well known for being the most self-confident of athletes. As it is said, sprinters are born, not made, and you either have it or you don't.) Second, and more important, their use of the tactic tells me precisely who is going to be most vulnerable to it.

And the Dark Lord laughed....

Labels:

SJWs always lie

It's as if they have to constantly spin false narratives or they'll stop breathing"
Glenn Hauman on said:
At least Mr. Beale isn’t claiming I’m calling for false reviews anymore, though he still hasn’t retracted that statement.
I am absolutely claiming that Glenn Hauman has called and is still calling for false reviews of certain works to be posted on Amazon. He has publicly, and disingenuously, called for them twice now.  Ten negative reviews, at least five of them confirmed by the reviewer to be false, have now been posted, some by his known associates. Mr. Hauman is either lying or woefully mistaken when he says I am not claiming that he's calling for false reviews anymore.

This is standard SJW behavior. They say something in a passive-aggressive, plausibly deniable manner that they expect others to interpret in a certain way and act accordingly. This is why they are always talking about "dog whistles"; that is how they communicate amongst themselves.

Then, when criticized for the very consequences they intended, they deny having done what they did, reject all responsibility for the consequences of their words, and insist that everyone accept the false narrative of the disconnect between their call to action and the subsequent actions.

Hauman points out that he said people should read the various Puppy works before the reviewers "put them down", but some of the reviewers didn't, by their own admission, read them, nor did Hauman give a damn whether they did or not. His objective was for the Puppy works to receive negative reviews, which they subsequently received. Mission accomplished. The pretense the SJW attempts to maintain is usually a childishly transparent one, and it both confuses and alarms them when one simply ignores the verbal fog of nominal "plausibility" with which they try to preemptively defend themselves and focuses on the intention and the effect.

As, one notes, the justice system likewise does. No drug dealer has ever escaped conviction because he said "melons and cantaloupes" in the place of marijuana and cocaine when wire-tapped. What he said may be true, but it is irrelevant. His intentions are best judged by the response to the words, and not the words themselves.

The reason we know it is disingenuousness and dishonesty and not an inability to connect cause-and-effect is that SJWs are not similarly inclined to respect genuine deniability whenever they are accusing someone of one of the many isms they wield as weapons to DISQUALIFY. In fact, SJWs regularly claim the ability to read minds and discern intentions even when there are no actual consequences to observe.

Don't ever take an SJW's spun narrative at face value. That's exactly what they expect you to do; that's exactly what they need you to do. Punch through it and expose them. You can be sure that the narrative will be false because SJWs always lie.

Speaking of which, these two false narratives are excellent examples:
Stevie on May 22, 2015 at 7:24 pm said:
One thing you will discover is that the canine conspirators are now in total disarray, because the Sads didn’t realise that they would be Shanghaid by the Rabids. Equally, the Rabids are in total disarray because Beale really thought he was going to be treated as an entrepreneurial mastermind by the WSJ and therefore was completely blindsided when the WSJ laughed at him. In other words, all they’ve got left is to be as destructive as possible, and do their best to make everyone else miserable.

Chris Hensley on May 22, 2015 at 7:37 pm said:
“Equally, the Rabids are in total disarray because Beale really thought he was going to be treated as an entrepreneurial mastermind by the WSJ and therefore was completely blindsided when the WSJ laughed at him.”

All the while Vox Day is screaming “Why are you running? We have them right where we want them!”
Are you in total disarray, Rabid Puppies? As for the idea that I was "completely blindsided" by Michael Rappoport's article in the Wall Street Journal, this is exactly what I wrote to the Evil Legion of Evil about it two weeks before it ran: "Wall Street Journal piece coming soon, possibly tomorrow. Strangely enough, they didn't even ask me if I hate black lesbians or kick kittens. It will probably be moderately against us, in my opinion. He wasn't hostile, but he played "devil's advocate", in his own words, several times."

I was, of course, under absolutely no illusions that the piece would have anything to do with entrepreneurship or my being a mastermind of any kind for the obvious reason that I actually talked to the reporter for about ten minutes. Not only were his questions mildly accusatory in nature, but the fact that he was also talking with two people who had nothing to do with the story, George Martin and John Scalzi, was sufficient to tell me which way he was going to spin it. As in fact, turned out to be the case. But the tone of the article was considerably less poisonous than the Entertainment Weekly, Guardian, and Popular Science stories that were planted by the Torlings. Which was nice, and I also noticed that the comments on the WSJ web site ran about 10-1 in our favor.

As for the clueless wonders at File 770 who don't understand how the Torlings plant stories in the mainstream media, they should look at who publishes the authors of some of those "journo things". 

Labels:

Friday, May 22, 2015

Immigration = unemployment

It's always fascinating how economists who like nothing better than to cite the Law of Supply and Demand turn around and claim that increasing the labor supply by nearly 20 percent neither reduces average wages nor native employment:
The number of foreign-born workers kept rising. Last year, there were 25.7 million in the U.S., up from 25.3 million in 2013. They accounted for 16.5% of the labor force in 2014, up from 16.3% the year before and 15.5% in 2009, the year the recovery began.

The foreign-born worker labor-force participation rate—the share aged 16 and older working or looking for work–was 66.0% in 2014, higher than the native-born rate of 62.3%. Foreign-born workers are more likely than native-born workers to be male and more likely to be between the ages of 25 to 54, ages when the participation rate is highest, according to the BLS.

About 48.3% of the foreign-born workers in 2014 were Hispanic and 24.1% of them were Asian last year, according to BLS. The composition of foreign workers has shifted since 2009, with Hispanics’ share decreasing and Asians’ rising.

Foreign-born workers saw their median usual weekly earnings rise to $664 in 2014, up from $643 in 2013. The difference between the weekly earnings of foreign-born workers and their native-born counterparts narrowed slightly as well from $162 in 2013 to $156 in 2014. The earnings gap peaked at $173 in 2010 and has been trending down since.
Since 20 percent of the US labor force is non-American, it should be no surprise that the number of Americans now outside the labor force has increased dramatically in line with the increase in immigration.

This shouldn't be rocket science. Let's use a reductio ad absurdum to explain. If 100 percent of the labor force is foreign-born, what percent of native-born Americans have jobs?

a) 100
b) zero
c) mu

The immigrants aren't even that much cheaper, as their median usual weekly earnings are 81 percent of the native-born workers. If we assume that employers are unable to spend any more money on employment than they already are, that means that immigrants are responsible for putting 20.8 million Americans out of work.

Labels:

Just a reminder

Kicking Puppies is not nice. Glenn Hauman issued a second call for anti-Puppy Amazon reviews, this time on File 770:
Glenn Hauman on April 15, 2015
You can game Amazon ratings as well. Here’s a list of all of Mr. Beale’s nominees, complete with handy links to Amazon. It might be a good idea to take a look at the reviews and see which ones are helpful. If you’ve read the works, you should add your own review. Oh, and to answer the title question: what do you do to rabid puppies? You put them down.

Glenn Hauman on May 20, 2015 at 10:51 pm said:
Just a reminder to all Hugo voters: After you’ve read items in the Hugo packet, you don’t have to confine any reviews of them to your own blogs and social media. Feel free to add them to Amazon as well.
And once again, SJWs have obediently responded to his call. Mr. Hauman's actions strike me as a very good way to encourage publishers to stop participating in future Hugo Packets. I mean, why should we do so if it's only going to provide the SJWs in science fiction with another means of attack? Mr. Hauman has demonstrated how the Hugo Packet can be destroyed in a single year; what publisher is going to even be willing to include excerpts when inclusion in the Packet means several hundred one-star reviews on Amazon within weeks?
BIG BOYS DON'T CRY

Not recommended

This is not a very good story. To be honest, it is not my kind of SF and the only reason I read it was because of the Hugo nomination.
Published 3 hours ago by Hampus Eckerman

Lame Whiny Book.
(Disclaimer: I didn't buy the book here; got it as part of the Hugo ballot packet.) David Weber can write cartoon villains and cowardly REMFs and it's fun to read, even...
Published 10 hours ago by Bill Stewart

What a Waste of Time
This must have been a rough year for novellas if this is one of the front-runners for a major award. Did he pay his friends to nominate him?
Published 11 hours ago by Janelle Wilbanks

Dated and amateurish MilSF
Another 2015 Hugo nominee from the Puppies.
Magnolia, a.k.a. Maggie, is a Ratha, an armored war machine in the military forces of a starfaring and aggressive Earth... Read more
Published 21 hours ago by Elisabeth Carey
These reviews averaged 1.5 stars, whereas the 142 other reviews averaged 4.3 stars. Elisabeth Carey is also attacking John C. Wright, giving ONE BRIGHT STAR TO GUIDE THEM its only two-star rating in 80 reviews which otherwise average 4.5 stars. No doubt this is merely a matter of differing tastes combined with some coincidental timing. Again.

Of course, BIG BOYS DON'T CRY and ONE BRIGHT STAR TO GUIDE THEM are not the only Hugo nominees included in the Hugo Packet. ANCILLARY SWORD presently has 204 reviews and a 4.1 rating. THE GOBLIN EMPEROR has 232 reviews and a 4.4 rating. To quote Mr. Hauman: "Just a reminder to all Hugo voters: After you’ve read items in the Hugo packet, you don’t have to confine any reviews of them to your own blogs and social media. Feel free to add them to Amazon as well."

Feel free, the man says. Feel free. On a tangential note, while Chuck D brought us the concept of the one-man riot, Lori Coulson has invented the one-woman blacklist. She's going to continue to not read books by authors she had never read before:
Lori Coulson on May 21, 2015 at 8:38 pm said:
The one thing the Hugo packet has demonstrated to me? That there are a bunch of authors out there I never want to read again, and not only will I not read anything more by them, I definitely won’t be reading anything the “Evil League of Evil” writes, edits or publishes. After being wowed by “The Crucible” in High School and taking the lesson within to heart, I find I’m starting my own personal blacklist. And it makes me very unhappy that it’s necessary to do so.
And here we were told blacklists were bad. Anyhow, this sounds rather like MSNBC's audience threatening to never watch Fox News again.

Labels: ,

The media litmus tests

A New York Times reporter fact-checks ethnic identity:
A Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Berkeley, David McCleary, wrote to me this week with a complaint about being subjected to what he called “a Jewish litmus test” during a Times interview.

The interview (conducted by a Times stringer, or regular freelancer, who is not on the full-time staff) was done for an article that eventually appeared on the front page, “Campus Debates on Israel Drive a Wedge Between Jews and Minorities.” It took up efforts on college campuses to pressure Israel over its policies toward Palestinians and its occupation of the West Bank.

Mr. McCleary, who is Jewish, said that the reporter, Ronnie Cohen, asked him “insulting and demeaning questions,” including whether he “looked Jewish,” after telling him that his name didn’t sound Jewish and asking if he had been bar mitzvahed. He also said that after talking with the reporter for more than an hour, he was displeased to find that none of that interview made its way into the article, and that no other Jewish student who supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement was quoted or represented in the story....

After speaking to Ms. Cohen, who confirmed, in general terms, the nature of the questions to Mr. McCleary, Ms. Mitchell told me, “If she indeed pursued that line of questioning, it was inappropriate.”
These litmus tests are the way SJWs in the media and elsewhere attempt to shoehorn people into their anti-white narrative. You've probably noticed that they absolutely hate to admit that I am a Native American, because that blows their "white supremacist" angle to Hell. You can tell they don't really care about Hispanics because they have no similar problem admitting that I am Mexican... except for the few who were trying to raciss-DISQUALIFY on the basis of my statements against open immigration.

In the case of the intrepid Ms Cohen, it's obvious that she didn't like the fact that a Jewish man was taking what she believed to be the wrong position, ergo she tried to DISQUALIFY him as a Jew. This is one of the many inevitable consequences of identity-based ideology. As one professor objected:
I am distressed about the lack of evidence in the piece to support the authors’ assertions about this deeply sensitive and volatile issue. Divestment is supported by a large group of individuals — some of them members of minority groups, and some Jews. (I, incidentally, do not support the movement). To make this into a “Minority vs. Jewish” question, without supplying evidence, is to distort the issue.
Of course, distorting the issue is the main objective. But this story of ethics in ethnic journalism also points to something more important. When talking to the media, ALWAYS record them. It's clear that the national editor doesn't want to fire Ms Cohen, hence the statement "If she indeed pursued that line of questioning". Since Mr. McCleary probably didn't record his conversation with the reporter, he probably can't prove it and she'll get away with it.

So, I repeat: when speaking with the media, ALWAYS record your conversation. This prevents them from playing their usual game of attempting to spin what you said even as they deny what they did and said.

Labels:

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Three options

This is one of the first rational things I've seen the SJWs at File 770 produce in weeks:
Nick Mamatas on May 21, 2015 at 9:21 am said:

There are three options as far I can tell:

The Hugos being a product a fandom, much of the discussion around “fixing” the issue boils down either angry blog posts about white people (ie, admissions of pathetic whining defeat) or statistical wonkery (ie foolishness). These are all wrongheaded—slating is essentially a political issue, and political issues need political responses. There are three possible ones:

1. Suck It Up.
Probably a pretty good idea. This bed was made some years ago when blogging culture sparked a shift from significant social sanction when people tried to get votes by asking publicly for consideration to “obligatory” posts promoting their own work, and later, the work of their friends. Loud Blogs win; Loud Blogs Plus Online Workshop-Clubhouses win more; and Loud Blogs plus political discipline win even more. Why should only the Loud Bloggers people have decided that they personally like and are “friends”* with win? Eventually, it’ll all even out, especially as what is most likely to happen is that the SPs get nominated and then lose decisively year after year.

2. Castigate all campaigning, not just the campaigning you don’t like
Pandora’s Box isn’t necessarily open forever. However, you can’t close half a lid. It would take significant effort to change widespread attitudes, but it is not as though those attitudes have not changed before. If campaigning was always met with eye-rolling or even outright disgust, it would stop being so effective. Some people would betray and try to promote, but if the audience was inured to such appeals, it just wouldn’t work and hopefuls would eventually stop.

3. Counter-slates
We’ll almost certainly see attempts at counter-slates. I’m against the idea, but the current cry to vote “No Award” in all SP-dominated categories is itself a counter-slate after a fashion. Someone will come up with Happy Kittens and stump for non-binary PoCs or stories with lots of scene breaks or or or…well, that’s the problem. One counter-slate would likely thwart the SPs, more than one would not. And we’re sure to see more than one. Disciplined slate voting works best when only one side does it and the other side isn’t even a side. Two slates split demographically. Three or more, uh… At any rate, it all comes around to political discipline again. If some party were to launch a counter-slate next year, would others who found that slate imperfect let it by without critique and another alternative slate. (There are actually two Puppy slates, but they are largely similar.) There can be slates that are so attractive that many more people sign up to vote for the Hugos, but I strongly suspect that people overestimate the amount of outside “pull” these slates have; general Hugo chatter across blogs and Twitter in general is driving increased education about supporting Worldcon memberships, and then there are all the free books voters might receive, which is also a new thing. One counter-slate would be effective, though of course the cure could be worse than the disease, and more than one would likely not.

So aggrieved Hugo Award followers, which shall it be?

Two is still the best bet.
This is at least dealing with observable reality, unlike those who fantasize that tinkering with the rules is going to slow down any group that contains at least one individual with a brain, or worse, those who think that MOAR DISQUALIFY is magically going to accomplish anything. So, let's consider their options from our perspective.

1. Suck it up

This is what they should have done. It would have taken a fair amount of the wind out of our sails. However, most of the potential benefits are now lost since they've already motivated our side through their histrionics and media-planted stories.

2. Castigate all campaigning

Won't happen. Far too many people on their side are guilty of it, and far too many people are already invested in the idea that what is very, very bad for us is just fine for the Tor set and everyone who bought memberships for their children and extended families.

3. Counter-slates

This is the only real option for them now. It's also the one that is most frightening for them, because it puts an end to their gentleman's agreement to stick to logrolling and whisper campaigns as long as no one gets too greedy, and forces them to come out and compete in the open. They hate open competition on principle and the idea that they might come out for a fair fight next year and lose will strike them as so terrifying as to be beyond imagining. Furthermore, because they really, really care about winning awards, it's going to be much harder for them to put together a slate, much less find the numbers to support it in the disciplined manner required now that a bloc of 40 votes is no longer sufficient to put something on the shortlist.

I'm not saying that Sad Puppies will automatically win a battle of slates, but that sort of honest and open competition suits us much better than it suits them. But I expect that next year there will be at least two rival slates, one of which will be centered around the Torlings.

Labels:

Brainstorming

I felt last night's event went fairly smoothly, all things considered. Even though we went about 15 minutes longer than scheduled, I wasn't able to address all of the questions in detail, but the chat server worked, as did both of the recordings. Transcripts will be sent out to everyone who signed up as soon as they are completed.

If you're interested in signing up on an annual basis for a 20 percent discount, you can do so now, otherwise you can just sign up on a monthly basis as your schedule and interests permit for $25 per event.

The next event is a free one and will feature an interview with Martin van Creveld, the Israeli military historian, on Sunday 31 May at 3 PM Eastern time. Members will have priority seating; I don't know yet if there will be 100 or 500 seats available.

If you attended and want to share your opinion about how it went, for good or ill, feel free to do so. Three panelists seemed to work pretty well, but in the future I we'll definitely want to nail down the three primary subjects, one per panelist, ahead of time.

Labels:

Ye cats, they're stupid

I checked – somebody on File 770 thinks that Wright forgot the name of one of his characters, and changed it from Sarah to Sally randomly. Not so – she is referred to as both names, but there’s no explanation as to why in the story. It would have been better to be consistent.) ….
- SJW Chris Gerrib

One wonders if Mr. Gerrib would also require an explanation if the same character was referred to as Joey at 10 and as Joseph at 35. The SJW inability to figure this out has been a small, but telling demonstration of the intellectually inferior looking at the work of their superiors, and because they lack the wits to make sense of it, pronouncing it stupid.

The diversity camp crumbles

Anyone who has studied the history of racially and culturally diverse societies knew this was inevitable:
A complaint Friday alleged that Harvard University discriminates against Asian-American applicants by setting a higher bar for admissions than that faced by other groups.

The complaint, filed by a coalition of 64 organizations, says the university has set quotas to keep the numbers of Asian-American students significantly lower than the quality of their applications merits. It cites third-party academic research on the SAT exam showing that Asian-Americans have to score on average about 140 points higher than white students, 270 points higher than Hispanic students and 450 points higher than African-American students to equal their chances of gaining admission to Harvard. The exam is scored on a 2400-point scale.

The complaint was filed with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

“Many studies have indicated that Harvard University has been engaged in systemic and continuous discrimination against Asian-Americans during its very subjective ‘Holistic’ college admissions process,” the complaint alleges. The coalition is seeking a federal investigation and is requesting Harvard “immediately cease and desist from using stereotypes, racial biases and other discriminatory means in evaluating Asian-American applicants.”
This action is particularly significant for its symbolism; Harvard is the throne of American left-liberalism. But the nominally ideological alliance of minorities against the white majority was only going to last as long as the minorities felt they benefited more from that alliance than from flexing their muscle in their own direct interests. Based on what we're seeing from the Asians in the political world, they are all but done with their "liberal" alliance with blacks, Jews, and Hispanics.

It won't surprise me if Asians magically become more "conservative" in the next decade as they switch to a Yellow-White (Blue) alliance against the White (Red)-Black-Brown alliance. Politics in the USA and in the UK are becoming less about ideology and more about the straightforward racial power struggles that have historically characterized most diverse societies.

And yes, I use the Red-Blue colors in their original form; Red being the appropriate color for those of the more socialist inclinations.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

The SJWs review the shortlist

Not that the outcomes were ever in any doubt, but it's always interesting to see what justifications the SJWs produce for their DISQUALIFY. Here are a few commenting at File 770:
Hampus Eckerman on May 19, 2015 at 9:04 am said:

Just finished the Related Works. Not satisfied again.

Wisdoms from my Internet was mostly a collection of tweets. Some were funny, some were well thought out, others were boring and a few were… well, lets say they catered to people with another political taste than me. Ranting about “SJWs” is not the way to get votes from me. Anyhow, who wants to read that amount of tweets? Nah, this is a no award.

Why Science is Never Settled was the standard article about the scientific methods, one of hundreds, just not as well done as many others. No award again.

Wright is as horrible as usual in his Transhuman and Subhuman:

“The female spirit is wise rather than cunning, deep in understanding rather than adroit in deductive logic, gentle and supportive rather than boastful and self-aggrandizing.”

“Contrariwise, when women in the kitchen or the nursery use the name of the Lord in vain, and the children they are nursing and teaching hear them, the vulgarity has the negative effect of deadening the emotions of the youngsters and making them vulgar and indifferent to vulgarity.”


“Also a woman who is crude inspires contempt, because she has contempt for God and man. The difference is that a woman who loses her native delicacy and modesty does not become an object of fear and respect, but an object of contempt and loathing, because the aura of sanctity women naturally inspire in men is tossed away.”
And so on. Bollocks I say.

Hot Equations might be very interesting for a weapons nerd or for someone who loves reading about exactly how weapons work. Sorry to say, I’m not that person.

Which leaves Letters from Gardner which was just damned weird. A mix of a guys memoire, writing tips and then stories. As I had never heard of him before, the memoire part was kind of boring. The writing tips weren’t anchored in anything. Stories in the mix of this just felt strange. So, nah.

And thats it. No award I guess.

clif on May 20, 2015 at 9:39 am said:

so I’ve read all I’m going to read of the short stories … preliminary voting …

1. Totaled
2. A Single Samurai
3. No Award
4. Turncoat
5. On a Spiritual Plain
6. The Parliament of Beasts and Birds


Nate Harada on May 20, 2015 at 7:27 am said:

I will confess that I No Awarded four full categories and I’m pretty >_< about it. I *wanted* to like "A Single Samurai." I did, really! But, well, yeah. No. But it was good of Baen to include the entire anthology in which it appeared.


Katya on May 20, 2015 at 4:54 am said:

@Happy Turtle I’ve read most of 3 categories (Short Fiction, Novel, Graphic Story). In one of those categories, only two of the works are strong enough that I would have finished reading them if I came across them in a magazine. While both are OK, neither has strong enough writing or storytelling or characterization to be ‘award’ level writing. I’ve read short stories published this year that are much, much stronger than both of those works. I don’t feel it is right to give a prestigious award to works that are middle-of-the-pack. To me, it devalues the award.


nickpheas on May 20, 2015 at 1:08 am said:

OK, reads Hugo Packet. One Bright Star To Guide Me By.

Is there an in story reason why Wright seems to use Sally and Sarah to describe one of his characters, or just did he forget what he called her?


rob_matic on May 20, 2015 at 1:58 am said:

He may be using Sally as a diminutive of Sarah, although I can imagine it reading oddly if both are being used.

Peace Is My Middle Name on May 20, 2015 at 2:07 am said:
Given Wright’s stated attitudes towards women, I find it utterly unsurprising that he cannot even remember the name of his own character.


SocialInjusticeWorrier on May 20, 2015 at 4:43 am said:

I don’t think switching between Sally and Sarah is a problem, so long as the author has a good reason for doing it. I could see O. Henry, for example, using the shift in names very effectively to make a point about how different someone is/appears in a formal setting (as Sarah) as opposed to their normal life (as Sally). What I don’t see is John C Wright having any such purpose in his narrative, which argues for incompetence or carelessness.

 GSLamb on May 19, 2015 at 7:18 pm said:

Had a few days convalescence (and a few more ahead), so I thought it a fine time to catch up on my Hugo reading.

Thanks to a very good local library, I have been reading most of the Best Novel nominees on the traditional Ent-corpse editions. “Skin Game” was everything I thought it would be – no more, no less. “Three Body Problem” was either over my head or not something to read on medication (I will revisit next month). Even though I had not read the first novel, I enjoyed “Ancillary Sword”. It wasn’t until the end when I realized that not every “She” was female (again, medication).

With renewed access to my laptop, I started greedily digesting the Hugo packet.

Oy.

The worst thing about the packet is that I have to wait until they release the list of what would have made the Hugo ballot sans-slate so that I can read those works.

Having read that one story by John C. Wright (do not bother me with quibbles – they are all the same story*) five times was, admittedly, rough work. Luckily I had left the Graphic Story for afterwards. I nearly ruptured something reading “Rat Queens”.

Now, this might all sound very convincing were it not for the sort of works they were awarding in recent years. Or if you weren't able to see for yourself what "Rat Queens" is like. No, there can be no compromise, as those who were formerly neutral are coming to understand.

Will on May 19, 2015 at 4:43 pm said:

Until now, until tonight, I thought they were full of BS. Utter BS. But you make their case better than they do. Congratulations.

Will on May 19, 2015 at 4:49 pm said:

You couldn’t be helping Vox more if he was paying you.

And where would we be without SJWs to not only explain what is good and acceptable science fiction versus what is bad and unacceptable science fiction, but also our own principles.  After all, they obviously understand us so very well.

Bruce Baugh on May 20, 2015 at 8:26 am said:

Nate’s monologue reminds me of the thing that really chafes me about a lot of noisy, disruptive modern conservatives: how much time the rest of us end up explaining their own principles to them.


Aaron on May 20, 2015 at 5:30 am said:

The Puppies have already lost. Even if one of their authors wins a Hugo, the Puppies lose, because what none of the Puppies seem to understand is the award doesn’t confer the prestige you all so clearly crave. The prestige has to come first, or the award will be seen as tainted and undeserved. Every Puppy campaign has been an admission on the part of the organizers that the works they are touting are too weak to get nominated on their own merits. Every Puppy campaign is an admission that the Puppy touted authors are simply too lousy at their profession to earn recognition for their actual work. Every Puppy campaign is itself a loss for the Puppies.

Labels: ,

Giving up on civilized standards

Even if you are a blank slatist who subscribes to a purely cultural theory of African dyscivicism, how is a retreat from imposing civilized standards on disruptive young vibrants going to improve either their behavior or their odds in life?
Board members of California's Oakland Unified School District unanimously voted on Wednesday to cease suspending students for what they call "willful defiance." Those behaviors can include swearing/yelling at teachers, refusing direct orders, texting, and storming out of class, to name a few.

The reason? Concern that too many black students are being suspended for willful defiance.

One sophomore student, Dan'enicole Williams, told the San Francisco Gate, "They never take time out, if someone is sleeping in class, to ask what’s wrong. They may be acting that way because they didn’t eat the night before.”

"We’re getting pushed out of schools,” she added. “They don’t care about us.”

Along with suspensions, the new policy will also include bans on expulsions and transfers of students to other schools for multiple infractions.
This is not a society that is going to survive three more generations intact. I mean, anyone can be wrong about what the future will bring, but I simply don't see any credible scenario where this sort of absolute lunacy doesn't have considerable knock-on effects.

These optimistically misnamed "students" don't want to be there and there is observably no purpose in them being there since they're not even going to be held to minimal standards of behavior, so what is the point of denying their free will while simultaneously degrading the educational experience of all the other children?

Ah yes, preserving the narrative. The narrative must be preserved at absolutely all costs, or else Hitler will holocaust the Jews again. If I was a poor black single mother hoping that my child would somehow improve his lot by obtaining an education, I'd be up in arms about this nonsense.

Labels: ,

Men don't matter to SJWs

Nero observes the uneven and sexist reaction to acts of violence in A GAME OF THRONES:
    D&D are trash bags go back to the sewerage where you belong
    — ziggy (@foxfeuer) May 18, 2015

    D&D are so gross I hope they burn in hell.
    — stevebucky asun (@mybaabyblue) May 18, 2015

    I AM FUCKING FURIOUS I WANT D&D TO DIE THOSE PIECES OF SHIT
    — JUSTICE FOR SANSA (@sansaslady) May 18, 2015

“D&D” refers to the show’s creators, Daniel Benioff and Daniel Weiss.

If any other group were caught making tweets like this, they would probably be labelled a hate group. But that can’t happen to feminists, so publications like Vox instead blamed the show’s creators for “provoking the ire of the internet”. It’s hardly surprising, of course. These are the same people who had nothing to say about #killallmen.

This isn’t the first time that violence against female characters in Game of Thrones has attracted attention. The first was over the graphic murder of a prostitute by the sadistic King Joffrey. Then people were upset when Robb Stark’s pregnant wife was stabbed in the belly. Robb himself was impaled with a sword before his corpse was decapitated and paraded around with a wolf’s head stuck on his neck, but no one minded so much about that.

But the latest outrage has surpassed all the others, with odious, risible “geek feminist” blog The Mary Sue announcing that they would no longer promote the series.

    Here's our new policy re: @GameOfThrones. http://t.co/OkqrSawZaI #GameOfThrones

    — The Mary Sue (@TheMarySue) May 19, 2015

If these aggrieved Tumblrinas took a minute to think, they might figure out why violence against female characters seems so shocking: it’s because on-screen violence against men is so common that it doesn’t surprise us, and that in turn makes on-screen violence against women stand out.
It's no different in games. Remember all the protests against GTA because you COULD kill prostitutes in a game where you MUST kill copious men in a broad variety of ways just in order to play. Meanwhile, an SJW-approved version of A GAME OF THRONES is suggested:
Daenerys Targaryean withdraws from marrying Khal Drogo after realizing she’s a strong independent Khaleesi that don’t need no Dothraki. Daenrys still takes the dragon eggs that were a wedding gift. As she never burns though the eggs never hatch.

Sansa cuts her long red hair short and dyes it rainbow colours. Starts a social media raven campaign for the awareness of how tough the daughters of Lords have it. Spends the rest of her time telling peasant boys to check their privilege.
I've previously pointed out how the basic story of A GAME OF THRONES isn't even possible if the author had been properly feminist, and how a single change to a single character in A Song of Ice and Fire would have eviscerated the entire series and eliminated the greater part of its plot.  Consider the consequences of changing Cersei Lannister from an oppressed woman used as a dynastic piece by her father to a strong and independent warrior woman of the sort that is presently ubiquitous in third-generation fantasy, science fiction, and paranormal fiction.

  1. Cersei doesn't marry Robert Baratheon.  She's strong and independent like her twin, not a royal brood mare!
  2. House Lannister's ambitions are reduced from establishing a royal line to finding a wife for Tyrion.
  3. Cersei's children are not bastards.  Robert's heirs have black hair.
  4. Jon Arryn isn't murdered to keep a nonexistent secret.  Ned Stark isn't named to replace him.
  5. Robert doesn't have a hunting accident arranged by the Lannisters, who don't dominate the court and will not benefit from his fall.
  6. Robert's heirs being legitimate, Stannis and Renly Baratheon remain loyal.
  7. The Starks never come south and never revolt against King's Landing.  Theon Greyjoy goes home to the Ironborn and never returns to Winterfell.  Jon Snow still goes to the Wall, but Arya remains home and learns to become a lady, not an assassin, whether she wants to or not.
So, what was a war of five kings that spans five continents abruptly becomes a minor debate over whether Robert Baratheon's black-haired son and heir marries Sansa Stark, a princess of Dorne, or Danerys Targaryen.

Labels: ,

Delenda est

I couldn't help but smile yesterday when the gentleman at File 770 mentioned that he had asked several pro-Puppies what they wanted and they answered "SJW delenda est." That was beautiful. It touched me to such an extent that a single tear trickled down my cheek beneath the iron mask. And speaking of tears, this cri de coeur by Zoe Quinn about her unemployed and now-unhireable boyfriend is a good summary of what we want to see repeated over and over by SJWs in science fiction in the future:
How has the industry responded to his loyalty? Dubbing him a hiring risk. Too hot to touch. Heaven forbid some teenagers spam them with meme-laden emails. SmegmaDan’s blog said Alex hated gamers, better not hire him it could be risky.

Elephants afraid of mice.

God could you imagine how much worse it’d be if he was a marginalized person? Look at what happened to The Mighty No 9’s Dina Abou Karam? Look at her google search.

When you combine this with all of the other barriers marginalized people face, combined with how they are targeted for mob hatred at an exceptionally higher rate, it has a chilling effect on speaking out. There are countless marginalized people I’ve spoken to in the industry who are too afraid to support their friends in even the most lukewarm ways because they don’t want their employers to retaliate. There are so many women and people of color that have expressed private support alongside an apology for their fear of making it public because they have to keep their search results clean for a potential studio’s HR department.

You know that’s done to people like us on purpose, right? That running away at the first sign of smoke without fire is a tactic used against targets of online mobs CONSTANTLY? That they abuse SEO as a tool of social warfare? That the only power this carries is the kind major companies give to them by not bothering to see if it’s smoke without fire?

What if someone like Alex wants to go independent (leaving aside the question of if indies even hire producers for a second)? I cast a long shadow. He gets fucked over not just once from the industry’s general fear, but twice because his story has been looked over or lumped in with mine because he wasn’t “loud enough” about his own trouble. Not only does he get targeted because of being with me, but people look past his suffering, sacrifice, his work, and efforts to rebuild. People thoughtlessly treat him as an appendage. It’s infuriating. Look at some of the articles written about Crash Override. Look how often he’s missing or thought of simply as “a boyfriend” and not the cofounder he is. Look at how people attribute his work to me.  The man works his face off, gets results, and still gets screwed out of some of the credit.

Does that sound familiar? It does to me. I’ve fucking been there myself. It sounds like what USUALLY happens when I work with any men on a project. If you’re a marginalized person at all, you KNOW this feeling of frustration, of being whitewashed, of seeing your work being downplayed.

It’s not just Alex either. I’ve watched people who have been targets keep their heads down to try to keep themselves safe, just to have people all collectively forget what has happened to them. They’re stuck in a no-win position because speaking out means more hurt gets hurled their way, and more of their privacy is lost, but the cost of staying silent is that it seems that the world forgets about what happened to you at all. You’re left to wonder why people weren’t standing up for you like that, and if they cared about your suffering at all.

And since people with the power and reach need to speak up when those without are being hurt. Since I have been given the privlege to have this platform, I can’t just watch this, I have to speak up: THIS INDUSTRY IS CREATING A RISK OF SPEAKING OUT BY CALLING THOSE WHO SPEAK OUT A RISK.

We are bleeding assets to this industry, to this medium, at an alarming pace because of this risk aversion and shortsightedness. I would be dead or totally lost if not for Alex and the other folks who have been targeted by GamerGate and quietly faded away because it got to be too much. To see so many of them treated as footnotes is heartbreaking. To see my partner who has endured all of the hell I have and more treated as a fashion accessory and not the fully fledged and fucking impressive human being he is insults both of us and the things we have built *together*. For a risk adverse industry to treat him and other activists like lepers because a teenager might go “ur game sux” shows some pretty fucked up priorities.
The #GamerGate response has been worthy of the Vile Faceless Minions themselves: "Schadenfreudelicious!" One thing we'll be discussing at Brainstorm tonight is how to bring successful #GamerGate tactics into science fiction, as Zoe Quinn points to one obvious possibility. It's readily apparent that Tor Books doesn't care in the slightest that PNH calls himself a racist or that John Scalzi launches vulgar attacks on everyone to the right of Hilary Clinton who crosses his path. But then, Tor Books is not their ultimate employer....
The employer stood behind us. They saw the horde for what it was. But it didn’t stop there. Studios he never worked at got brigaded. Then his employer’s employer got brigaded, and upped the pressure. One of the things that makes mob harassment so insidious is how it attacks from every possible angle, and some you didn’t even think of. All it takes in any system is one point of failure, one person to make the wrong decision, one person to not understand what’s going on, one person to be a coward.
The SJWs have been playing this game of DISQUALIFY for a long time. They love to hurl the threat "you'll never work in this industry again" at their enemies; Charles Stross, to his eternal credit, even warned me about it ten years ago. So it's tremendously rewarding to see an SJW literally crying over the tactic being successfully brought to bear against them.

The secret of #GamerGate's amazing success is emails, sent out on a daily basis in a series of coordinated campaigns against specified targets. Few corporations can resist a steady barrage of emails; as Quinn herself points out, it only takes one person somewhere in the system to crack and the target will be cut loose. And given the poor sales and financial performance of the science fiction publishing houses in recent years, it is unlikely that their corporate masters are likely to continue to tolerate actions and behavior which have quite observably turned a statistically significant percentage of the science fiction-buying public against them.

Zoe Quinn claims "20 accounts owned by 3 guys" have been sufficient to DISQUALIFY her boyfriend from industry employment. There are 364 Vile Faceless Minions. There are another 200+ Dread Ilk, plus an unknown quantity of Ilk, Rabid Puppies, and #GamerGate sympathizers. Even if we assume that Ms Quinn is lying (she is an SJW after all), I expect we can accomplish more than most of us might think if we were to follow #GamerGate's lead in this regard. And in case you're feeling sorry for the unemployable SJW lowlife, do keep this in mind.

|

SJWs only get sick of culture wars when they start losing. Until then it's "Full Speed Ahead!" and "Remember the Misogyny!" 
- Daddy Warpig

Labels: ,

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Brainstorm May

We have 92 participants for the first Brainstorm (which will be at 7:30 PM Eastern regardless of what it says on the invite), and the event is now closed. The invitations for tomorrow will be going out within the hour; Dr. Greg Anderson will be serving as the sole panelist for this particular session. We THINK we've figured out a way to make it more organized, with Markku running the show as I focus on the topics at hand, but we'll see how it goes. Please keep in mind that we're new to the system and it won't be surprising if it's less than entirely smooth.

One thing I am pleased to announce is that although the system software does not have an audience chat feature, we've installed one on our own server so attendees can chat directly with one another in a second window. Instructions will be provided along with the invites.

And since there isn't much to discuss in this regard, here is an email from #21, a Rabid Puppy asking for the chance to discuss the Hugo-nominated works now that the Hugo Packet has been released.
I request a post in which to discuss the Hugo Award finalists, now that the packets are out. That is to say, I just read some of them and I really, really need to vent.
I am kind. Vent away.

Labels: ,

King Log or King Stork?

The only question is who will be king? Chris Hensley usefully summarizes the core issue underlying the conflict in science fiction at File 770:
It is helpful to understand the context in which the Puppies were started. There has been a debate going on for a number of years at this point, predating the Puppies and one which they are involved in like or not, about what, and who, we actually should accept and tolerate within the community. There has been a growing sentiment that maybe not everybody should be welcomed with open arms, maybe some people should be excluded.

I could spin it to sound more palatable, but it is a grave and terrible thing and as someone who supports sometimes excluding people for their actions it would be dishonest for me to do so. Fandom has had a tradition of not excluding anybody for any reason, including some pretty horrendous behavior up to and including sexual harassment and assault. This has finally come back to bite the community in the posterior, as well it should. A lot of this push back has been from the left-leaning end of fandom, and good for them, which has flavored both the community’s response and the reaction to that response. A lot of this is working how the details of what is, and is not, acceptable in what spaces.

One of the most heated debates, and the one the Puppies tapped into, is when speech should be excluded and when people can be excluded for their speech. The community traditionally leaned towards “never”, but the consensus has moved on that.
The moment that the SJWs in the science fiction community decided they could exclude individuals from it (and whether the SFWA expulsion was technically real or not is irrelevant in this regard), that meant the open community concept was dead. The principle was established. Now we can exclude Eskimos, people with big noses, people with little noses, people who look funny, or people who smell bad; in short, we can openly exclude anyone we have the power and the desire to exclude.

There is no longer free speech in science fiction. There is no longer freedom of expression or thought. It is now a simple ideological power game and we are ready to play that game with extreme prejudice. There is no need for discourse. There is no need for dialogue, for compromise, or negotiations. There is nothing to discuss.

They laid out the new rules. They laid out the new consensus. We not only accept them, we're going to use make far more ruthless use of them than they ever imagined. Once we were content to let the twisted little moral freaks do and think and say what they wanted, but now they have claimed the right to tell US what to do and think and say we're not going to tolerate them anymore. We are the sons of the Crusades and the daughters of the Inquisitions. This is a game we know how to win.

Remember, they didn't exclude rapists. They didn't exclude child molesters. They didn't exclude Communists. They didn't exclude monsters. They only excluded those with whom they ideologically disagreed. CMM observed:
I was reading the discussion from a 1960s fanzine which contained the discussion of whether Worldcon should ban the man who later became her husband (and still later died in prison after being convicted of child molestation).

In their attempts to keep up their ideal that everyone is welcome in fandom, the fans doing the discussing go to amazing lengths to deny that the guy is a problem and as they do so they reveal behavior they and people known to them have personally witnessed that made my hair stand on end, including groping the children of mutual friends in front of the friends and other guests at their house.
Remember, the science fiction community was absolutely fine with open child molesting. They still defend and honor child molesters and the sexually aberrant, even as they mock and exclude their ideological opponents. That is the sickness of the community over which the Evil Legion of Evil will methodically march. And speaking of the long march, now that the Hugo Packets are out, I should have my Totally Personal List Of Merest Voting Inclinations That Absolutely No One, Not Even The Vilest of Minions, Has To Follow To The Letter ready in about two weeks. I trust that description should suffice to keep everyone who has been whining about slates and bloc votes satisfied.

Mike Glyer adds:
It’s possible for people to exclude themselves from community with others they disapprove, but there seems to be no literal way of excluding anyone from fandom, which is why it has that misunderstood reputation for unlimited tolerance. I remember the time I passed Walter Breen in the aisle of a con huckster room, at first being astonished, then wondering “Should I tell someone?” Then, “Tell them what? They already know, he’s wearing membership badge.”
He's absolutely right. It's possible for a large group of people to exclude themselves from community with others they disapprove. All that we're initially sorting out right now is who is on the Blue SF side and who is on the Pink SF side. Which, of course, is why many of those on the latter side are suddenly rushing to deny that there are two sides; they know theirs is much smaller. And they know we aim to misbehave.

UPDATE: This sums up our position nicely.
I did ask some pro-puppies that very question about how much they want. The answers I’ve gotten in emails have been very much along the lines of “Delenda Est”.
The Legion marches.

Labels: ,

Credit is money

Shades of the old inflation/deflation debate. Zerohedge points out the vast imbalance between credit money and cash.
1)   The total currency (actual cash in the form of bills and coins) in the US financial system is a little over $1.36 trillion

2)   When you include digital money sitting in short-term accounts and long-term accounts then you’re talking about roughly $10 trillion in “money” in the financial system.

3)   In contrast, the money in the US stock market (equity shares in publicly traded companies) is over $20 trillion in size.

4)   The US bond market  (money that has been lent to corporations, municipal Governments, State Governments, and the Federal Government) is almost twice this at $38 trillion

5)   Total Credit Market Instruments (mortgages, collateralized debt obligations, junk bonds, commercial paper and other digitally-based “money” that is based on debt) is even larger $58.7 trillion.

6)   Unregulated over the counter derivatives traded between the big banks and corporations is north of $220 trillion

When looking over these data points, the first thing that jumps out at the viewer is that the vast bulk of “money” in the system is in the form of digital loans or credit (non-physical debt).

Put another way, actual physical money or cash (as in bills or coins you can hold in your hand) comprises less than 1% of the “money” in the financial system.
The simple facts tend to make the whole "war on cash" concept look absolutely absurd, as well as entirely obvious that it is about political control, not economic growth. The reason the central banks want to ban cash is because the credit money system is on the verge of collapse and they see it as a straw that could nevertheless cause the whole damn thing to collapse.

Which, of course, it is going to do anyhow. The map is not the territory and it will never be the territory.

Labels:

SJWs eat their own

There is a wonderful scene in Garrison Keillor's Wobegon Boy when the protagonist, a true red SJW who runs a public radio station at a private university, returns from a conference where he received an award for excellence in public broadcasting to learn that the women who report to him have turned on him and are accusing him of sexism in order to oust him from his position as the station manager. Led by his secretary, a card-carrying member of Wounded Daughters of Distant Fathers, they plant a story in the local media prior to taking their manufactured complaints about him to the university administration.

The reporter was Sandra Welles, who had called me the day after my dinner with Jean. The story was a real torpedo... It said that I had "a problem" with assertive women, being from the Midwest, and that I tried to "psychologically seduce" women in meetings and charm my way around them. I had paternalized the decision structure and made women afraid to speak up....

My heart sank. These slanders had come from people who knew me. They worked at WSJO and had come to my house and drunk my wine and eaten my Chinese spareribs.... Why would people be so angry and bitter toward me? I had built this station from the ground up and had managed it reasonably well, and what was their beef?

Their beef, of course, was that said protagonist, John Tollefson, was a white man from the Midwest who played white male classical music at the station he built and managed. Ergo, he had to go in order to make way for the station's transformation into a vehicle for social justice and women's issues. After his ouster has been successfully orchestrated and is all but complete, Tollefson reflects on what will happen to the station, but like a good SJW, he completely fails to learn anything from his experience.

I sat in bed, drinking water and gazing out at the snowy backyard and thinking about the radio station and Dean Baird. In a few months, WJSO would change over, from classical music to talk: the Gay-Lesbian Parenting Hour at one P.M. and the Men Dealing with Impotence Hour at one-fifteen, the Hearing Impaired Hour at one-thirty, Wounded Nephews of Distant Uncles at one forty-five, People in Grief for Former Lovers at two, the Herpes Hour at two-fifteen, People in Search of Closure at two-thirty - each with its own smug host and tiny clientele, its own style of vacuity - and should I fight this? No, I did not think so.

This seemed apt in light of the recent SJW declaration of disavowal of George R.R. Martin, who has gone from repeatedly attacking the wintery, chaotic evil of the Rabid Puppies and Vox Day to refusing to talk about the feminist attacks on him and his television show.
I am getting a flood of emails and off-topic comments on this blog about tonight's episode of GAME OF THRONES. It's not unanticipated. The comments... regardless of tone... have been deleted. I have been saying since season one that this is not the place to debate or discuss the TV series. Please respect that....

There has seldom been any TV series as faithful to its source material, by and large (if you doubt that, talk to the Harry Dresden fans, or readers of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, or the fans of the original WALKING DEAD comic books)... but the longer the show goes on, the bigger the butterflies become. And now we have reached the point where the beat of butterfly wings is stirring up storms, like the one presently engulfing my email.

Prose and television have different strengths, different weaknesses, different requirements.

David and Dan and Bryan and HBO are trying to make the best television series that they can.

And over here I am trying to write the best novels that I can.

And yes, more and more, they differ. Two roads diverging in the dark of the woods, I suppose... but all of us are still intending that at the end we will arrive at the same place.

In the meantime, we hope that the readers and viewers both enjoy the journey. Or journeys, as the case may be. Sometimes butterflies grow into dragons.

((I am closing comments on this post. Take your discussions to the other sites I have mentioned....)
They're just doing the best they can, people! Translation: "Please stop hitting me! Also, please go away and leave me alone." What a complete fucking coward! Whatever happened to all that "debate and honest dialogue" for which you were calling, George? I also enjoy his resort to the patented Sam Harris Defense, in which the ex post facto claim of having anticipated a response is considered tantamount to rebutting it.

Keep in mind that Wobegon Boy was published in 1997. SJW women turning on the white men in their midst is nothing new, and yet every Tollefson and Martin and Scalzi and Sanford and Hines believes it can't possibly happen to them because their little SJW hearts are pure.

Labels:

Monday, May 18, 2015

Hugo Packet available

HUGO NOMINEE PACKET AVAILABLE
Spokane, Washington, 18 May 2015

A digital file of many of the Hugo Award nominees is now available for members of Sasquan to download at http://sasquan.org/hugo-awards/packet_download/. This free download is supplied by the creators and publishers of works that are nominated for the awards. It is free to all current Supporting, Attending and Young Adult members of Sasquan, and those who become members before 31 July 2015. Its purpose is to allow those who are voting on the Hugo Awards to be able to make an informed choice among the nominated works.

All of the short fiction and graphic novels are included in their entirety (((assuming Zombie Nation comes through!))). The packet contains the full text of three of the novels: The Dark between the Stars by Kevin J. Anderson, The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison, amd The Three Body Problem by Cixin Liu. Skin Game by Jim Butcher and Ancillary Sword by Ann Leckie are represented by extensive excerpts. One of the five finalists in the Related Work category is represented by an excerpt: Letters from Gardner, by Lou Antonelli. There is some material in each of the other categories except the Dramatic Presentations, but not everyone wanted us to include their work in this packet.

Voting on the Hugo Awards is open to all Supporting, Attending or Young Adult members of Sasquan. More information about voting and a ballot may be found at  http://sasquan.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2015-Hugo-Ballot.pdf. In order to vote, you will have to enter your membership number and Hugo PIN at http://sasquan.org/hugo-awards/voting. Sasquan membership and registration information is available at https://sasquan.swoc.us/sasquan/reg.php

Labels:

The Excluded

This concept of intellectual exclusion may help explain why the credentialed elite are so often at odds with me. They can't believe I am willing and able to challenge them so successfully, and I can't believe what clueless idiots they are despite their credentialed positions of intellectual authority. It explains an awful lot; I thought they were smarter than they apparently are:
The probability of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession such as Physician, Judge, Professor, Scientist, Corporate Executive, etc. increases with IQ to about 133. It then falls about 1/3 by 140. By 150 IQ the probability has fallen by 97%! In other words, a significant percentage of people with IQs over 140 are being systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded from the population that addresses the biggest problems of our time or who are responsible for assuring the efficient operation of social, scientific, political and economic institutions.

"Over an extensive range of studies and with remarkable consistency, from Physicians to Professors to CEOs, the mean IQ of intellectually elite professions is about 125 and the standard deviation is about 6.5.  For example, Gibson and Light found that 148 members of the Cambridge University faculty had a mean IQ of 126 with a standard deviation of 6.3.  The highest score was 139."

"From a theoretical standpoint, democratic meritocracies should evolve five IQ defined 'castes', The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded. These castes are natural in that they are the result of how people of different intellectual abilities relate to one another.  This is based on research done by Leta Hollingworth in the 1930's and the more recent work of D.K. Simonton."

"Leta Hollingworth studied profoundly gifted children.  She reported them as having IQs of 180+, which was a R16 score.  As such, on today's tests this equates to 159+.  Her conclusion was that when IQ differences are greater than 30 points, leader/follower relationships will break down or will not form.  It establishes an absolute limit to the intellectual gulf between leader and followers."
In other words, more than a few PhDs at elite universities are more than two standard deviations below me in IQ terms. And here I am supposed to be impressed by a Bachelor's degree in Philosophy of Language from a second-tier Midwestern university? In fact, given the ability of the Ilk and my Vile Faceless Minions to not only follow my lead in a disciplined manner but also correctly anticipate my intentions without having them explained, the evidence would tend to suggest that the mean intelligence of the regulars here is higher than the Cambridge faculty.

Based on my interactions with "intellectually elite professionals" this doesn't shock me, although I'm a little surprised that both the mean and the ceiling as as low as they are.

So it should be no surprise that I've been "systematically and, most likely inappropriately, excluded" from the science fiction community, as its mean is probably around 1.5 standard deviations below the university professors. (Although in my estimation there are a few SF people with whom I have interacted who clearly have IQs over 139.) But in most instances, the intellectual gulf is simply too great.

Garth Zietsman has said, referring to people with D15IQs over 152, 'A common experience with people in this category or higher is that they are not wanted - the masses (including the professional classes) find them an affront of some sort.'  While true, it is more likely a symptom than a cause of the exclusion.  We need to understand why they are an affront.

I can tell him that. People who work very hard and spend years in order to climb to what they regard as the pinnacle of achievement actively resent those who can simply leap up to the peak. And because their knowledge is hard won, they tend to cling to it much more tenaciously than the more intelligent individual who is no more tied to one piece of information than the next. What makes it worse is that they cannot fathom that the more intelligent individuals do not think like they do.

Members of high IQ societies, especially those that require D15IQs above 145, often comment that around this IQ, qualitatively different thinking emerges.  By this they mean that the 145+ D15IQ person doesn't just do the same things, intellectually, as a lower IQ person, just faster and more accurately, but actually engages in fundamentally different intellectual processes.  

I've been pointing this out for years, if you recall. But because I don't think like the less intelligent, I am regularly labeled everything from stupid to racist. In my experience, the 150 IQ individual does not resent the individual with the 160 or the 175 IQ, and this may be because being above 145, we all tend to engage in similar thought processes, albeit with different capabilities. The 135 IQ individual dislikes and fears the 150+ individuals, while the 115 IQ individual either doesn't believe the 150+ individuals exist or blithely insists that they are crazy.

That's why I despise midwits. You simply can't talk to them. They don't even try to understand you, but instead move to disqualify you as fast as they can. I have much more sensible conversations with people in the 75 to 100 range than I do with most in the 105 to 120 range. The 125 to 140 crowd is okay as long as they don't have an inferiority complex, but when they do, they're the biggest annoyances of all.

People with D15IQs over 150 are effectively 'The Excluded', routinely finding their thoughts to be unconvincing in the public discourse and in productive environments.  If placed in a leadership position, they will not succeed.

Now you know why I have such an allergy to being asked to lead in any way, shape, or form. In any event, this may be one of the more interesting aspects of Brainstorm (a reminder, there are 20 places left for the Wednesday session at 7:30 PM Eastern), as even those who aren't +3SD or higher are, at least, open in principle to the wild and crazy thoughts being expressed by the higher intelligences. If we can figure out how to best harness a community of High IQ Excluded, we should be able to come up with more than a few interesting projects.

Labels:

The Greek canary

Default is coming. So is Grexit. Bloomberg's take:
How long can Greece carry on? With revenues just about covering the pay and pensions bill, there’s not much left over to make even the small(ish) payments due to the IMF in June. If Greece and its banking sector can limp a little further, the state should get a boost from income tax receipts that usually flow in July. Unfortunately, that might come too late to pay the ECB 3.5 billion euros due on July 20, and the repayment that follows in August looks like an impossible challenge without a disbursement of Eurogroup funds.

Should Greece’s citizens begin to lose faith in a positive outcome to negotiations, it’s quite possible that receipts could falter as more of the usual tax payments are held back and taxable activity is curtailed. Still, some boost to the Treasury’s bank balance is likely in July. General government revenues could be lifted by about 3.8 billion euros compared with the average for the other months of the year. That would get some way towards the figure needed to pay the ECB, though it might not come soon enough to avoid a missed payment.

Of course, making it as far as July depends on how long the Greek banking sector can survive. Absent a change to the haircut imposed by the ECB on Greek banks’ collateral, limitations on emergency liquidity assistance are unlikely to pose serious constraints before mid-July. Greek banks have enough collateral to access 93 billion euros in liquidity. That's 13 billion euros above the current cap. The four-week average of increases by the ECB stands at 1.5 billion. At the current pace of increase, Greek banks could keep borrowing more for about eight weeks to offset deposit flight.
The usual suspects will insist that this is irrelevant because the USA has the ability to "print" its own currency, but again, the limit has nothing to do with printing and everything to do with finding someone willing to either borrow or loan the credit money. Furthermore, the Greek public is obviously quite willing to borrow, whereas the American public is not.

But this superficial assessment omits the fact that all the "Greek bailout" money went to the Greek banks, and deposits are loans to the banks. The negative interest rates beginning to appear around the world mean that the various publics are increasingly unwilling to loan their money to the banks, which is why the various proposals for banning cash and other means of preventing individuals to keep stores of value money outside the ever-widening maw of the banking system are being floated.

It's a complicated subject and no one understands it completely, to the best of my knowledge. But rest assured that any solution that does not involve most of the banks writing off bad loans and then going out of business will be a failure.

Labels:

Second-best ending ever

I have never watched Mad Men, never had any interest in it, but after reading about the final episode, that has to be the second-best ending of a television show ever, only surpassed by the epic end of Newhart. Third, in my opinion, would be the end of The Sopranos.

I love the fact that the show's creator absolutely must have had the ending in mind from the beginning. That's a first-rate lesson in doing storytelling right.

Somehow, I tend to doubt that A Game of Thrones will end anywhere nearly as well. While Benioff and Weiss have generally shown themselves to have much better storytelling instincts than George Martin, I'm still trying to figure out what on Earth is going on with Danerys inexplicably deciding to marry a member of the Mereen aristocracy. Fails as drama, fails as logic, and fails as being interesting.

Labels:

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Sexism and ideological bias in science fiction

Since we're often informed by the SJWs how vital it is that more women are given awards on the basis of inclusivity, let's begin with putting the facts out there. We already know, per Mike Glyer, that Hugos have been awarded to 19 conservative winners since 1996. I went through the list of Hugo Awards by Year and counted the number of women awarded, then counted the total number of awards given out. When more than one individual was awarded, I added the relevant percentage of that particular award (so one women in a group of four counted as 0.25, for example), and rounded up to a single decimal at the end.

2014: 9 of 17
2013: 4.8 of 17
2012: 8.8 of 17
2011: 6 of 16
2010: 2.8 of 16
2009: 4.5 of 15
2008: 1.3 of 14
2007: 3 of 14
2006: 3 of 13
2005: 4.8 of 14
2004: 4.7 of 13
2003: 4 of 13
2002: 1.5 of 13
2001: 2 of 13
2000: 1 of 12
1999: 1 of 12
1998: 0.5 of 12
1997: 1.5 of 12
1996: 1.5 of 13

TOTAL: 65.7 women have won 24.7 percent and 19 conservatives have won 7.1 percent of the 266 Hugo Awards given out since 1996. This is despite the fact that conservatives outnumber liberals by a factor of 1.6 in the USA, which means that conservatives are underrepresented by a factor of 11.3, versus women being underrepresented by a factor of 2.

Now, if the SJWs are to be believed, sexism is a serious problem but there is absolutely no evidence of left wing ideological bias. They keep repeating this despite the fact that the anti-right wing bias in science fiction is observably 5.6 times worse than the purported sexism about which they so often complain.

Which merely points us once more towards the truth of the lesson: SJWs always lie. And if the numbers aren't enough to convince the more rhetorically minded, there is also a considerable quantity of anecdotal evidence of bias such as this comment from Martin Wisse:
To be honest, Worldcon fandom has been caught with its pants down by the Puppies, too slow to react to the first two attempts to game the Hugos. We all thought, and I was no exception, that after the Puppy nominees were trashed in the actual voting last year, the spoiled brats behind it would get the hint and fuck off.
Well, not so much. But at least we all know how seriously to take their pose of inclusivity.

Labels: ,

Anti-GamerGate is afraid


CisWhiteMale ‏@Userlich
hey @voxday how do you feel about being lumped with Elliot Rodger

King of Bros ‏@Doomskander
I think it's more hilarious that he's further on the scary scale than Rodger

Vox Day ‏@voxday
I feel I'd like to correct them. I am considerably scarier than an inept loser like Elliot Rodger.

Labels:

A History of Strategy chapter 1

A History of Strategy chapter 1 - ProProfs

The embed feature no longer works properly, so just follow the link above and click the big START button. Discuss it and ask any questions you might have in the comments below.

Keep in mind that the idea of the Voxiversity quizzes is not to catch you out or even test your knowledge, they are primarily designed to help you cement the basics of the book in question in your mind. The idea is that if you ace a series of Voxiversity quizzes, you possess the essential knowledge of the book required to understand it. I occasionally go back and retake some of the older Voxiversity quizzes just to ensure that I continue to retain the information involved.

The next quiz will be Chapter 2 on Saturday, 23 May.

Labels:

The common factor

XDPaul points out that the parties responsible for what the Worldcon community is lamenting are not either the Sad or Rabid Puppies:
This is supposed to be a literary award, not playground taunts and bullying

If that was generally understood Sad Puppies would’ve never happened in the first place!

Exactly.

Scalzi should never have – unprovoked – called that guy he didn’t know a “a jackass, and a fairly ignorant jackass at that” in order to curry favor with established authors. All of this could have been prevented, had Scalzi not turned fandom into his private personal playground specially designed for these taunts and bullying of which you complain.

Taunts, bullying…and awards-gathering, of course. I know, let’s call it “Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded,” that epic scholarly work so highly regarded in the annals of SF.

If you want to condemn the one who set this all off, I think the former President of the SFWA, initial taunter, rape humorist, “easiest difficulty setting there is,” master of the recommendation list, and award-winning Professional Fan Writer John Scalzi is not a bad place to look.
Everyone here knows why I went to the trouble of getting John Scalzi's traffic statistics and unmasking him as the liar and fraud that he is. Perhaps fewer understand why Larry Correia is no fonder of the little charlatan, but Steve Moss explains:
 From what I can determine,the Corriea-Scalzi feud started as follows:
1. Ms. USA makes comments about women’s self-defense.
2. Corriea supports her comments.
3. Jim Hines’ criticizes Ms. USA and Corriea, in not too pleasant terms.
4. Corriea pins Hines’ ears back.
5. Scalzi goes after Corriea, and is his usually condescending and insulting self.
6. Scalzi gets his butt kicked in the Twitter exchange.
7. Many hot tempered words follow for the next 2-3 years year, with no sign of abating.
And then, of course, I would be remiss if I failed to recall this hilarious exchange:
John Scalzi ‏@scalzi Apr 8
I wish Larry Corriea had the balls to admit the reason he started the Sad Puppies campaign was that he just wanted a Hugo so fucking bad.
45 retweets 66 favorites

Larry Correia @monsterhunter45
I turned down my Hugo nomination and you still didn't make the ballot.
360 retweets 501 favorites
The post-Loncon period in which McRapey repeated the very sort of falsehoods that the International Lord of Hate predicted the SJWs would attempt to put forth also merits mention. Meanwhile, Hugo nominee Kary English notes that the self-proclaimed inclusivity crowd has been more than a little bit hostile to outsiders, even to the point of harassing us with violent language.

"I’ve pretty much lost count of all the times I’ve seen someone say the Puppies should be shot, euthanized, put down, drowned, etc. It’s not cool. It’s not acceptable"

Perhaps someone should enquire of Sasquan if people who have harassed Hugo nominees in such violent fashion will be banned from the con, as I expect such statements are likely in clear violation of their Harassment Code. And finally, we have more evidence of the oft-observed truism; SJWs always lie:
Owlmirror on May 16, 2015 at 9:43 pm said:

    Scalzi should never have – unprovoked – called that guy he didn’t know a “a jackass, and a fairly ignorant jackass at that”

You mean VD’s anti-Semitism and misogyny don’t count as provocation?

    All of this could have been prevented, had Scalzi not turned fandom into his private personal playground specially designed for these taunts and bullying of which you complain.

You mean, VD would have not taunted and bullied anyone if not for Scalzi? What about the fact that he taunted and bullied women SF writers in the first place?
Yes, nonexistent anti-Semitism and misogyny don't count as provocation, for the obvious reason that they do not exist. Nor does a single column addressing an attack on a disease-stricken Michael Kinsley by Susan Estrich and explaining the toxic effect of feminism on female intellects qualify as taunting and bullying women SF writers.

It's fascinating to see how the SJWs resolutely refuse to see the obvious and recongize the single common factor in everything from award campaigning and pro Fan Writers to the culture war and the increased incivility in SF. This is particularly obvious once you take into account that I was an SFWA member participating in various events and activities without incident for seven years prior to McRapey first surfacing in the SF community.

However, the most interesting bit in the comments might have been easily missed, as Mike Glyer raised one of the few relevant points to be found amidst the lunatic sea of SJW rhetoric:
“How many conservatives have won the Hugo in the past 2 decades again?”

I just did a count and found 19 Hugos have been won by conservatives since 1996.
The determination of who is and who is not a conservative may be arbitrary, but as Mike has shown himself to be impartial throughout, there is no reason to quibble over it. This means that out of the approximately 304 266 Hugo Awards* that have been given out since 1996, only 7.1 percent have gone to conservatives. It will probably surprise no one here to learn that this factual observation of extreme left-wing bias in science fiction fandom was immediately met with the suggestion that conservatives simply aren't very good at writing science fiction and fantasy.

"It could be just that Conservatives are not (at the present) very good at creating art.... Certainly (some) Conservative art in the PAST was good. Maybe there is something about the current Conservative movement which curtails their ability to create art? IDK."

That could be. Or, you know, perhaps there is something to the assertion that nearly every single right-of-center author, male and female alike, has made about aggressive left-wing ideological gatekeeping in science fiction and fantasy. After all, the mere possibility that a few more right-of-center authors might win a Hugo has not only prompted a hate campaign in the international media, but open calls for changing the rules.

*This is a correction. I originally multiplied the number of years by the number of awards given out in 2014, but fewer awards were given in previous years.

Labels: ,

Older Posts