kate_nepveu: sleeping cat carved in brown wood (Default)
Kate ([personal profile] kate_nepveu) wrote2015-04-08 09:20 pm
Entry tags:

they're Rabid, not Sad

Point to be made about public discourse about the Hugo nominations:

The "Rabid Puppies" slate, the one put forth by Vox Day (a pseudonym for Theodore Beale), is the dominant slate here. It put more nominees on (58 v. 51), and 10 nominees appeared only on it, as opposed to three of the "Sad Puppies" slate (Brad R. Torgersen). (Breakdown via File 770; don't read the comments.)

If you don't know why this matters, you can read a short, rather restrained summary of Day's views at Wikipedia (content notes for sexism, anti-immigrant rhetoric, racism, and sizeism).

I still don't care that much about the Hugos, but it frustrates me to see news articles, blog posts, etc., acting as though the "Sad Puppies" is the only slate that exists and ignoring the more significant influence of Beale/Vox Day.
trent_goulding: Me & my daughter, bedtime story (Default)

[personal profile] trent_goulding 2015-04-09 01:58 am (UTC)(link)
Yes. I'm not sure how much I care about the Hugos, but given that I've spent _way_ more time reading about this crap in the last week than I should, or would expect ex ante, it's apparently more than I would have credited. It's frustrating to see the focus on SPs while eliding the RP presence. One can read Torgersen and Correia (and I have!) and disagree (and think them disingenuous on any number of points), while still acknowledging that they are within the bounds of civilized discourse.

Vox Day is noxious, disgusting, and beyond the pale. His comments on N.K. Jemisin alone, to say nothing of the many other examples one could choose, should make even any fellow travelers with any decency run screaming in a vigorous effort to disclaim the taint of even the slightest association.
rmc28: Rachel standing in front of the entrance to the London Eye pier (Default)

[personal profile] rmc28 2015-04-09 09:00 am (UTC)(link)
It's the people willing to be in a business relationship with him given the sort of things he says publicly (i.e. anyone publishing through Castalia Press) that really boggle me/scare me.
princessofgeeks: (Default)

[personal profile] princessofgeeks 2015-04-09 02:09 am (UTC)(link)
I think what has boggled me most about this so far is the Slate article quoting W*ll Sh*t****y on this affair.

I mean, how in the world did they rake him up as a source????? And why?
mme_hardy: White rose (Default)

[personal profile] mme_hardy 2015-04-09 04:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Look at the astral plane! Admire the friendly horrorterrors! Buy their odd, curiously-worked obsidian souvenirs!
rosefox: A pie chart for "yes" and "no" that is 100% "no". (no.)

[personal profile] rosefox 2015-04-09 03:22 am (UTC)(link)
Oh nooooooooo *digs a hole* *hides in it*
sovay: (Sovay: David Owen)

[personal profile] sovay 2015-04-09 06:20 am (UTC)(link)
I still don't care that much about the Hugos, but it frustrates me to see news articles, blog posts, etc., acting as though the "Sad Puppies" is the only slate that exists and ignoring the more significant influence of Beale/Vox Day.

I just had to put together a summary with links and citations for my parents, longstanding readers of science fiction who do not spend much time on the internet. I had to read way too much Beale to do it. He should not be euphemistically tidied away.
rmc28: Rachel standing in front of the entrance to the London Eye pier (Default)

[personal profile] rmc28 2015-04-09 08:57 am (UTC)(link)
You are not wrong, and it is annoying me constantly when I read about this.
genarti: Sarah Connor looking dubious ([scc] dubious)

[personal profile] genarti 2015-04-09 02:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah. Agreed.
damerell: (reading)

[personal profile] damerell 2015-04-09 03:34 pm (UTC)(link)
True enough, although - credit where credit is due - we should recognise that Beale didn't even have the wit to come up with the original stupid idea.