And of course I read the comments to see if there was any particular reaction to my post among the others in the article (on account of I am vain).
In those comments I found a few repeated, generalized points made by Sad/Rabid Puppies supporters which I feel deserve a generalized response, because on their face they have the appearance of valid points.
"How dare you not vote for us? You're liberals! You're supposed to be tolerant and inclusive!"
Well, first, let's see how tolerant Theodore "Vox Day" Beale is of liberals, hm?
I will not “live and let live” with SJWs for the obvious reason that it is not possible for anyone to live and let live with them. […]
We will never play nice with them. We will destroy every last vestige of their pernicious ideology.
So, let's see. Destroying liberal belief and driving out all liberals is fine, but when liberals point out that the Puppies are acting like childish assholes, then the Puppies wail about tolerance?
News flash, conservatives: tolerance is not the same as acceptance, nor as agreement. Tolerance means you let people do as they wish, live as they wish, so long as what they do doesn't harm others. Tolerance means not discriminating over issues that aren't any of your damn business- race, religion, sexuality, etc.
Tolerance does NOT mean silence in the face of asshole behavior. You can hate people of X race / X gender / X sexuality / X religion all you want, and that's tolerated. But when you discriminate against such people in your public affairs- when you rig the system to shut them out- that's NOT tolerable.
And most of all, tolerance does not mean we have to love you and hug you and agree that your opinions are better than our own. The puppies in general (especially Larry Correia) seem desperate to be loved by the science fiction fandom. "Why don't you LOVE ME? Why do you all hate me so much! I'll MAKE you love me!"
Another news flash: that doesn't work. You can't make people love you. That's the kind of thinking that Mens' Rights Activists and pickup artists use to justify their extremely sketchy behavior. Such people can't tell the difference between affection and fear-driven intimidation.
What kind of person thinks they're entitled to a hug from the person they've just punched in the face? Apparently, a Sad Puppy.
"We haven't stopped anyone from voting! We only made recommendations! The people have spoken!"
Quoting Beale again:
Silenced? We silenced no one. We did exactly what John Scalzi suggested we do. We read. We recommended. We nominated. We haven’t prevented a single person from uttering a single word anywhere. So why would you claim we silenced anyone when we clearly have not?
Ah yes, now I recall. Because SJWs always lie.
Theodore Beale specializes in weasel words. He will say and do horrible things and then try to trick you into thinking it's your fault that he's done these things to you, and that he's totally innocent. (More on that later.)
The Puppies did not merely recommend or nominate. They deliberately proposed a system whereby their picks would dominate the nominations, and campaigned to get people to vote along with them, all for the very specific purpose of punishing liberals for the crime of not loving conservatives. By so doing they created a situation where, in a majority of Hugo categories, voters would have no choices other than Puppy picks or "No Award"- and Beale has made it clear that "No Award" is not an acceptable option so far as he's concerned.
Correia, Torgersen and Beale have conspired to deprive Hugo voters of a choice of options representative of the broad spectrum of tastes and opinions in the Hugo electorate. They took advantage of the rules in a fashion so that a small, united minority could drown out the voices of a disunited majority. They know this full well, but they want to make it look like it's someone else's fault. Hence the Beale weasel-words quoted above.
"The SJW conspiracy kept us from winning in 2014, so what we did was right!"
In 2014 Correia's second Sad Puppies slate (which was a legitimate and ethical one-pick-per-slot slate) made the egregious mistake of including "Vox Day" (Beale) among its picks. Beale is personally unpopular within sci-fi fandom, to understate the case, as a blatant troll, racist, misogynist and neo-fascist. His inclusion on the ballot wasn't the only reason the second Sad Puppies got a bad rep, but it was by far and away the biggest reason. So, of course, the LonCon Sad Puppies came in dead last in every single category...
... and the Puppies claim this was because of a liberal conspiracy to control the minds of the fandom.
It never occurs to them that it might just be possible that the Puppies lost in London because most people really despise racist trolls, and that no conspiracy was really required.
The Hugos, as I said in my prior post, are a popularity contest. If you're unpopular, you're not going to win any kind of open, honest, fair vote.
Which is why the Puppies set up their third attempt to ensure that no fair vote would be possible.
"All we conservatives want is freedom of expression! If you vote No Award, you're censoring us!"
Guess what? Not winning a Hugo does not mean your freedom of expression was violated. It means either that not enough people heard your expression, or that those who heard it liked other things better.
The 2014 Puppies got a seat at the table- a seat, by the way, which conservatives were NOT deprived of before (as witness past nominees and winners, which George R. R. Martin did). The 2015 Puppies, not satisfied with 2014, decided they wanted ALL the seats. That's not freedom of expression by any standards other than right-wing conservatives'.
And as for censorship: it bears repeating that thanks to the Puppies, most of the Hugos are a choice between "Puppies are the best!" and "No Award." Again, the Puppies are so desperate to be loved that they decry any vote which isn't a Puppy vote as censorship.
Bullshit. If a person doesn't like a thing, they are under no obligation to vote for that thing. You are not entitled to a Hugo.
"We played by the rules! That makes it fair!"
No, no it really doesn't.
"Fair" is when the nominees represent the electorate as a whole. If the Puppies are to be believed, then in 2015 the science fiction fandom loves Castalia Press more than any other publisher except Baen, and John C. Wright is the best short-story sci-fi writer since Asimov. The premise is laughable on its face.
It's entirely possible to obey all the rules and still take an unfair advantage. It happens all the time in real life, which is why children of rich people get richer and children of poor people generally stay poor. It's why black people in America are generally confined to slums and low-paying jobs and considered as criminals until proven otherwise.
Obeying the rules doesn't mean you played fair. It might just mean you're a very successful weasel.
"It's your fault we won, because you didn't bother to vote, because you didn't organize your own slates, so nyah!"
Maybe so. As I said in my prior post, the Hugos themselves are not really important. I've never voted in the Hugos because I have better uses for my money, and also because I haven't much interest in reading 90% of what gets nominated.
Neither I, nor anybody else, thought the Hugos were so important that it was necessary to devote the time and energy into campaigning for people to spend $40 or more simply to ram through a super-slate of politically acceptable works- until now.
Now that it's happened, a lot of people are appalled- but the most appalling thing is that it was done with less than 20% of the vote.
Or, to put it another way, over 80% of voters casting Hugo nomination ballots did not vote for a single Sad/Rabid Puppy recommended work or creator.
So the 20% get to rule over the 80%, and in the minds of the Puppies, this is fair... because it's them doing the ruling.
"You can't stop us. You can't control us. You can only control yourselves."
True, which is why in my post I basically said there's nothing to be done about redeeming the Hugos from the Puppies.
But the fact that someone actually made this point- here it is in its entirety:
This is cute little discussion and all about tolerance. Just remember… that we don’t give a damn if you tolerate us or not.
We don’t care.
We know you don’t like us. We’ve always known you don’t like us.
We don’t care.
Your threats… your fuming.. your crying about how just awful we are… Its pointless.
We don’t care.
We’re doing what we’re doing. There is nothing you can say to stop us. You can’t control us. You can only control yourselves. And it would be novel… if you were to do so. For once.
This is creepy shit. This is the kind of language an abuser uses to his victim- and it's telling that it's a close friend and associate of the Puppies leadership who uses it.
By the way, it's not at all uncommon for abusers to blame their victims for the abuse- in fact it's what usually happens, because the abuser is incapable of accepting any blame themselves. And, again, it's telling that this is a tactic the Puppies in general, and Beale especially, love to use.
As I said in my previous post: these people are toxic. Don't engage. Avoid when possible, but don't make a big deal about it.
(Of course, I'm a hypocrite here, since I just responded to Puppy droppings, but I don't intend to make a habit of it.)