If Liberals and Left-leaning folk have a blind spot, it lies in the assumption that everyone thinks like us - or rather, that everyone will think like us. For all of the Left's talk of subjectivity and the equal value of all worldviews, many of us have a nasty tendency to assume that everyone will think and behave like us in the end.
When you enshrine science and logic as your ultimate goods, it is easy to slide into the assumption that your beliefs are inherently scientific and logical. When you assume your beliefs are scientific and logical, it is easy to slide into the assumption that no decent person can forever resist them. Worse, you slide into the assumption that they are the only scientific and logical beliefs.
If the first law of Philosophy is "Know Thyself" and the first law of War is "Know Thy Enemy," then the assumption of superiority is surely the best way to lose a Philosophical War. Ideas must be tested, tried, and refined before they can even be said to be Useful, let alone Superior. Concepts drop out of the Bacchanalian Revel all of the time. There is no evil in this; it is simply part of the dance.
Naturally, Conservatives have problems of their own when it comes to uncritical assumptions. On paper, we might even say that they have more problems with uncritical assumptions. However, once a Conservative steps into the public sphere, something strange happens.
Everyone in the public sphere gets attacked, but Conservatives gets attacked by a much higher class of critic. The Academy leans towards the Left, whether you think that is because reality has a Liberal bias or because of a Leftist conspiracy.
The result is, public Conservatives face opponents that are on average more logical, better read, more experienced with intellectual combat. Conservatives must either back down or create ever-more destructive, ever more refined intellectual weapons.
The educated Liberal, on the other hand, can get away with only debating cowed Conservatives and other varieties of Liberals. On the rare occasion that they meet a truly dangerous Conservative, one can always fall back on the assumption of superiority followed by dismissal. As a result, we rarely engage in serious debate with an opponent that represents a truly existential threat.
This constant hammering shuts down debate, or rather, limits what can be debated. Sometimes this is good - I for one and am glad we no longer have to debate slavery. But it can also weaken us.
It undermines our ability to engage with those who are not like us. It muddies our vision of the state of the world around us and prevents us from grappling with the issues of the day. Sure, we can get away with not talking about slavery now - but to ignore pro-Slavery arguments in 1850 would have been suicide.
Most Conservatives will respond by dancing along just enough to scrape by. Pay enough lip service to pass as normal. Keep your head down and shuffle along. But every now and then, a Bad One emerges.
In my opinion, that is the Origin Story of Vox Day. For a time, he got hammered and did the dance. Dance enough to pass as normal. Dance enough to not have your opinions rejected out of hand. Dance a little more, and maybe you can be a part of civilized society.
Maybe one day the dance was not enough to hide him or maybe one day he just got sick of it. But the result was turning the full brunt of his intellectual energy against the other dancers. Whether the dancer of Egalitarianism or the dancer of Feminism, the dancer of Racial Unity or the dancer of Social Convention, he turned against them all. He will dance no more, lest the dance be moshing.
Many on the Left claim that Vox is not a threat. And maybe they're right. Maybe the gated community and the ivory tower can stave off the Puppies he is whipping into a frenzy. Maybe there really are more Liberals in the world, and their triumph is historically inevitable.
Yet they claim this while we live in a world where Donald Trump became a front-running Presidential candidate by using much the same rhetoric as Vox. He is more popular with minority voters than Jeb Bush, despite the excellence with which Jeb dances the dance. Correction - Jeb seems to have messed up the steps.
I am of the opinion that Vox is a legitimate threat. Other think he is not. Much of the argument revolves around whether or not Vox "won" at the 2015 Hugos. Naturally, Puppies say he did and non-Puppies say he did not. Since there may be a touch of bias on both sides, I propose the following tests for settling the issue:
[Note: This section was originally written on 08/26/15, before the release of SJWs Always Lie, and before Vox was kind enough to send me a review copy. Due to the potential conflict of interest, it has not been modified in any way since 08/26, including grammar and punctuation.]
1). If there are more Rabid Puppies in 2016 than 2015, Vox Day is a threat. If there are less Rabid Puppies, Vox Day is not a threat.
2. If SJWs Always Lie expands Vox Day's reach, he is a threat. If SJWs Always Lie only sells to the usual suspects, Vox Day is not a threat. If it is a flop, Vox Day is a joke.
3). If the 2016 Hugos are another round of No Awards, Vox Day is a threat. If the 2016 Hugos are awarded normally, Vox Day is not a threat. If an open Puppy wins a Rocket in 2016, Vox day is The Threat.
[End of section.]
If anyone can think of fairer, better criteria, please let me know. As for myself, I will comfort myself with the knowledge that even if Vox is not a threat, he is at least never boring.
Then again, a Puppy winning a Rocket in 2016 could be a good thing - perhaps the best thing. It would naturally be contingent on a Puppy writing a Hugo-worthy piece that won fair and square, but it could also indicate that the Puppy Kerfuffle no longer mattered. If we can return to a place where the author's personal politics are no longer what matters most, then de-escalation has occurred.
I'm not saying that anyone should vote for anything other than the best piece - I'm saying that everyone should only vote for the piece they think is the best work of Science Fiction.
Finally, and in closing, I would like to thank the Puppies who were drawn to this series for their input, criticisms, and polite discourse. I apologize for implying you were a bunch of braying sycophants, since that is not how you conducted yourselves.
As thanks, here is a piece of advice: if your 4GW is successful, you will find yourselves in a position of power. Remember that all of the advice I have given my side about maintaining moral legitimacy will apply to you as well. David can get away with a lot more than Goliath, but once in power, David's sins brought Absalom upon him.
I would have liked to be able to thank non-Puppies for their contributions as well, but unfortunately, none of them have commented as of the date of posting. Save a link for after the 2016 Hugos, y'all.
The result is, public Conservatives face opponents that are on average more logical, better read, more experienced with intellectual combat. Conservatives must either back down or create ever-more destructive, ever more refined intellectual weapons.
ReplyDeleteThis may have once been true - I wasn't alive in the 1960s, much less debating liberals, and I'm not inclined to get bogged down arguing over it.
But call it the rot of your lack of rigorous practice over time or call it the natural trajectory of an ideology further and further removed from reality, but your side is not these things any more. Objective truth is derided or denied. Great works that are the measure of 'well read' are shunned: too many dead white european christian males! Everyone's opinion is equally valid, and everyone can be 'triggered' by anything.
The worst part isn't that we on the right have been losing the cultural wars, the worst part is I look at the quality of the enemy and am shamed that we've been coming out second best. There's honor losing to a worthy foe... but to your millennial SJW taking remedial English in college all while rallying against the oppression of reading Lewis or Shakespeare... it boggles the mind.
Note I'm not talking about the average fellow who lives his life and doesn't particularly give a damn about European literature or the history of western philosophy: fair enough. But among the self-styled thinkers, intellectual sharpness is sorely lacking.
I would say that some of the Left's success comes from accepting that some things are genuinely subjective. I remember arguments from my youth over whether or not Rock music was inherently evil due to its use of "pagan African rhythms."
DeleteAt this point, I am also Pavlovianly programmed to look for logical flaws in human-designated "absolute truths." "Absolute" is the Right's "Offensive" - a trigger word for shutting down debate.
That said, I am often bemused by my class of allies. Why the hell wouldn't you want to read Lewis or Shakespeare? They are good and necessary to understand the culture you want to criticize.
If it's any consolation, my Leftist IRL friends are always really excited when they hear a logically consistent argument for a position they already have. There is a hunger for truth on this side too, stifled beneath the joyless pall of "Thou shalt not criticize."
I would have been a natural ally of SJW's but their attacks on people for holding ideas they disagree with has turned me off. I realize it is just a matter of time before they attack me for holding ideas they find offensive. They are a cancer and need to be excised from the body politic.
Delete[At this point, I am also Pavlovianly programmed to look for logical flaws in human-designated "absolute truths." "Absolute" is the Right's "Offensive" - a trigger word for shutting down debate.]
DeleteSo, when someone says, "2+2=4 is an absolute truth", you think they're trying to shut down debate? (The axioms underlying mathematics are human-designed, after all)
The problem with the Left is that they have expanded "subjective" topics beyond those things that actually are subjective (like tastes in music, et al) into the realm of objective reality, which has resulted in an inherently self-contradicting worldview. I don't reject rampant subjectivism in order to "shut down debate". If reject it because, if I don't, there quite literally can't be any rational debate about anything.
WATYF
Hahaha, good counter! Please allow me to clarify.
DeleteWhen someone claims "absolute truth" without giving solid evidence, I think they have not earned the right to claim "absolute truth." This is especially annoying when they think that this "absolute truth" should be self-evident without providing any solid evidence.
For example, it is claimed that Rock music is inherently evil due to "pagan African rhythms." Where does the Bible say this? How is syncopation inherently pagan or inherently African? And so on.
Yes, the axioms underlying mathematics are absolutely human-designed. This is why Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry are both mathematically sound, despite being logically incompatible.
When someone says "2+2=4," I understand what they mean by the concepts "2," "+," "=," and "4." That equation, simple as it is, cannot be parsed apart from the meaning of those terms. Given the correct definitions, context, and referents, "2+2=4" is true. Absent these factors, "4" could refer to "1+1+1+1+1 objects."
So yes, if someone wants to say that "2+2=4 is an absolute truth" and then refuses to define any of those terms or provide arguments as to why those definitions are correct, then I will accuse them of shutting down debate. I probably would not go to those lengths with "2+2=4" - unless someone was trying to use that absolute truth to get $5 out of me.
This is why it is so important for concepts to come further and further in line with observable, experimental reality. Unless concepts refer to observable truths, they are emptied of meaning. As meaningless as a "4" that means "1+1+1+1+1."
[For example, it is claimed that Rock music is inherently evil due to "pagan African rhythms." Where does the Bible say this? How is syncopation inherently pagan or inherently African? And so on.]
DeleteI'm surprised to hear that there are still people arguing this, but sure, a baseless assertion is a baseless assertion and should never be called "absolute".
But as I said, this isn't what I see when I watch leftists argue. I don't see people saying, "You know, I'd like to read your source material on that before I draw a conclusion". I see people saying, "Who are you to JUDGE!!! ANYONE!!!! If they feel it's true for them, then it's true!!" (which is a ridiculously self-contradicting statement, of course).
[Unless concepts refer to observable truths, they are emptied of meaning.]
I agree, but that statement is pretty much a death sentence for many of the Left's arguments today. Don't get me wrong, most people are idiots and have very low standards of evidence (on all sides of every issue), but only one side has made it a point to undermine the absolute value judgements of everyone's worldviews whilst still trying to cling to the ability to make absolute value judgements of their own. Most of the "SJW" nonsense that started all of this is the result of that misguided endeavor.
WATYF
That premise was never true. My observation has been that the when the left is losing they look for some "master play" by which their opposition can be shut down. Trigger words such as "racist" come to mind here. We see the craven moderates among the GOP establishment, for example, who dread being labeled in some way that makes them unacceptable in the polite society they wish to circulate among. To put in the way Vox day puts it "I. Don't. Care." There were plenty of people that wanted to bear the label of conservative, but were too craven to live up to it. Those are the people being described in the assertion that heads your post.
DeleteThey still exist. Good God, they still exist. So, from an early age, I have been extremely suspicious of statements like "it has been absolutely proven that [insert]." Without evidence, a claim of absolute truth is nothing but a claim.
DeleteSo, if you've got a racial reading list, let fly. It will take me a long time to work through it and I will be just as pedantically picky with it as with everything else.
The Left's problem is, ironically enough, relying too much on appeals to authority. "Eye contact is Rape because the loudest person said so." "Science proves there is no God." Give me a damn break.
Eh. I my experience, people on the Right move just as quickly to shout "disqualify!" Not Republican politicians, mind you, but the average Joe Six Pack.
Quartermaster,
DeleteIt's not unusual for people with their backs against the wall to start looking for escape routes.
So should we take the weak wills of the average Conservative into account when we start tallying up who has more support?
Why doesn't your site want me to comment? Two wiped out. If this one works... Well, then i will come back and post my thoughts again later. Too much effort to try again when i have shit to do.
ReplyDeleteI am very, very sorry about this. The site's comment settings should allow anyone to post, anonymously or not. I only delete double-posts, never anything else. If all else fails, there's always twitter.
DeleteI assume you delete spam (e.g. postings telling people how to make money by working from home) as well, but you really should say so.
DeleteOddly, I've never had to delete spam. Apparently I'm insignificant enough to avoid the bots.
DeleteActually, I wonder if blogger has some sort of automatic spam filter that's wiping out comments?
It does. Click on "comments" and you'll see a "spam" heading expand under that.
DeleteIf you start exploring John C Wright I would recommend his earlier works. I felt his latest works have merely been good instead of phenomenal. Specifically Awake in the Nightlands and the Golden Age. Those works are the basis of many of us claiming him to be the greatest active Sci Fi writer.
ReplyDeleteEven as a non-Christian, I totally enjoyed his work. My first book was, Awake in the Night. As I was reading this book, I was stunned with the quality of the writing. John C. Wright's talent far surpasses any living author. I do not say this lightly.
DeleteI have read 7 more of his books and plan on reading them all. His books/novellas, are simply the best of the best.
I got a copy of his Everness books on the eve of my wedding. I ended up staying up until 3am to finish it. His work is brilliant.
DeleteRev.
ReplyDeleteHonest quesrions:
1. do you agree that calling Brad racist, which your side did, is a sign of mental illness in the accuser?
2. Do you agree that GRRM lied and did so demonstrably, and this makes him a liar?
3. Do you agree that Scalzi is a whiny weasel who has the moral integrity of a fruit fly's flight pattern when he agrees to do the voiceover for a parody of Vox but then squals in much butthurt when a parody of him is made?
If you answer no to any of the above I would appreciate your reasoning (it will be wrong, but it may shed light on why you think so)
Honest quesr(t)ions (sic):
Delete1. do you agree that calling Brad racist, which your side did, is a sign of mental illness in the accuser?
No I do not, for the simple reason that calling people names is not a criteria of DSM IV (or any of the previous version of psychiatry's manual for diagnosing mental illness).
2. Do you agree that GRRM lied and did so demonstrably, and this makes him a liar?
No I don't agree. I suspect you think that lying is always motivated by bad intentions. The research suggests otherwise. Lying in and of itself is part and parcel of the human biological thinking processes, which are tied up up with social bonding that underpin social lubrication. I recommend reading the book; You are not so Smart by David McRaney for further clarification on psychological process.
3. Do you agree that Scalzi is a whiny weasel who has the moral integrity of a fruit fly's flight pattern when he agrees to do the voiceover for a parody of Vox but then squals in much butthurt when a parody of him is made?
No I do not, because your metaphor is hysterical hyperbole. However, I also I do not agree with mocking people as Scalzi has done. In this case two wrongs do not make a right.
If you answer no to any of the above I would appreciate your reasoning (it will be wrong, but it may shed light on why you think so)
I see what you did there. I'm afraid taking the position that your opponent is wrong before listening to the argument is the root of what is driving the furore over the Sad Puppies and the Hugos on the internet.
I will ask a question. What evidence would you need to change your opinion on what is happening? – By this I mean how would you disprove your own position? If the answer is none, then you're not open to persuasion, and my answering you is pointless. Further discussion is pointless, and we will have to agree to disagree.
Not Giuseppe- but I would change my opinion of John Scalzi as a whiny weasel if I could comment on his blog and get a response other than deletion. I only wish to comment on his occasional, incredibly offensive attack posts, understand. I have no desire to discomfit his remaining fans otherwise.
DeleteYa know, I think I'm just going to see what your response to Ashley is first, Giuseppe.
DeleteI've enjoyed your little series re: Vox. I'm not an official puppy or minion of any type, but I cant't spend a day without dropping by Vox Popoli to see what's up.
ReplyDeleteConsider myself barely ilk. You are obviously one of the better critical observers of ilkdom. Keep it up.
The reason the SJW's fail is simple, they do not understand Vox Day's supporters. I am a true minority. Dark skin, Non-Christian, English not first language, Advanced degree in STEM, non American culture.
ReplyDeleteWe are not racists. We understand math and science much better than the SJW's. Compare our degrees to SJW's. John Scalzi brags about a 2.8 GPA in BA in Philosphy? I chuckle. John couldn't swim in our world of numbers, equations, and logic. Frobenius Method? SJW's can barely spell method let alone understand how to solve.
SJW's cannot grasp other ways to deal with Vox Day because they just are mid-wits impersonating as intellects.
Your series here was commendable in so many ways. Kudos.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteRev -
ReplyDeleteYou can thank Vox for another reader. Classical, bleeding-heart, egalitarian liberals with both common sense and logic are a very rare commodity, and I think you put together an excellent series here.
A few comments:
1) I think one major reason that right-conservatives have historically been weak on debate is at least half-attributable to the simple fact that they don't have the time. Demographically, conservatives are more likely to (a) have children, (b) work full-time or more, (c) be less concerned with "global" social interaction - i.e. "who cares what the talking head is saying? I have better things to do."
2) One the most hilarious things about Liberals (species liberalus modernus pretentious) is their complete inability to recognize that they will naturally die out and be replaced by either conservatives or liberalus modernus plebius. There's no world in which there are more of them.
3) The victory conditions aren't a ladder - they're a tree. Branch one (behind the curtain) is complete. Branch two (fresh blood) is in progress. Branch three (burn it all) comes next for the rabid side, and this year's shenanigans pushed a lot of moderate or relatively disinterested puppies to the extreme side. Deescalation may not even be possible. Best case scenario for the opposition is that the puppies completely abandon the award and create their own, which will eventually overshadow anything the Hugo ever was.
1). Conservatives do generally seem to be more drawn to practical careers and the behavior of the humans in their immediate vicinity.
Delete2). Oh man, I love bringing that up to my fellow Liberals. Along with the whole, "population growth is mostly occurring in the Third World. Worried about resources? Want to reduce the Global Population? We're going to have to start there" thing.
3). Hmm...forcing the Puppies into a new award could allow the Powers That Be to institute new rules while there is effectively no opposition. Long term, a lot of interesting possibilities rise up. Like you said, it's a tree.
I need to offer some personal background before i comment.
ReplyDeleteGreek. Grandson of an actual (greek) communist hero(honors in ww2 vs the Germans, participated in the civil war and all). Also i am descend from the survivors of the this(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide). Atheist. And up till a year ago a leftist. I am 23.
My spiral towards center right(slightly tilting towards it)(either that or political compass test show up as almost neutral) started with gamergate and was completed with finding Vox's site. I had watched some stuff when it happened but hadn't picked up a side. Then some local feminist on our local part of DIGRA posted a #stopgamergate topic. Then disagreement started. To be frank i kept it as civil as possible. At some point she brought up the classical Anita-got-a-bomb-threat (which was proved to be falsed). Then i pretty much answered with a video of the Amazing Atheist that talked about it and how it pretty much meant nothing. Then i was called a fascist(must have been the buzzcut which i usually do due to practicing martial arts) and a misogynist and she went on to use all kinds of provocations, stupid links to sites like wehauntedthemammoth and use feminist bingo on everyone that tried to refute her. At the point, i did one of the mistakes you pointed and lost my cool and lashed out. Then, she took select pictures after the post was deleted and decided to make a new post so i could be ridiculed leaving out everything she said to me.
At that point, i the side was picked for me in those so called culture wars. And the more i watched some shenanigans of the postmodern left(like the hypocritical #killallmen, white people can't be racist, all european cultures are the same, respect all cultures but not your own-that's oppressing!!!, the propaganda against MRAs) around Europe and America, the more i actually became disgusted with it. It was so different than the left i grew up with. A left that was all about free expression to the extreme and against all PC. Because being PC here meant respecting the religious state. The same state that still has blasphemy laws in effect.
And this is mostly a personal thing but due to my lineage i pretty much can't be either a leftist or a rightist. Rightists hunted my family during Junta and before that called us Τουρκόσποροι(turkish seeds) when we had to become refuges. It pretty much meant we weren't Greek at all but Turkish despite talking Greek and being Christians. But the biggest crime against us was commited by the left. The leftists who celebrated the loss that resulted to us becoming refuges. The same leftists who tried to obstructs us when we wanted Turkey to recognize the genocide they committed against us but would rally for the Armenians. The same leftists who now when wanting to make a case about the incoming immigrants from Syria, suddenly remember that we were refuges and victims of a genocide 100 years ago and bring it up. This hypocrisy sickens me to the core of my being.
With all that said. I don't hate you. I will probably fight against your people. But it won't be because of Christ or Tradition.It can't be because i am fan of neither. It will be because many of your people are authoritarians with a guise of humanism. A humanism that when it was needed was denied from us.
I am not a leftist. I am not a rightist. I am an anti-authoritarian, anti-corruption,against cliques and a skeptic. I won't trade one master(Orthodox Church) for another(PC thought police).
Sorry for this long post and please excuse its semi-ranty nature. Has been i while since i could talk about those things to a reasonable leftist that wouldn't call me names.
small correction : "white people can't be racist"
Deletewanted to say : "non-white people can't be racist"
There's a lot of stuff here, more than can be unpacked on the comments section of a blog.
DeleteThe part that jumps out at me the most is "all European cultures are the same." That's a mistake that both sides make with painful frequency. I don't know how much of the Witcher III backlash you saw, but it boiled down to Liberals calling Polish culture racist and imperialist. Completely missing the whole "Poles were considered an inferior race and subject to massive imperialist oppression for most of modern history" thing.
When the "Christ of Europe" is considered a victimizer rather than a victim, I say "Good day."
I watched some of it. But for the most part kind of ignored it considering that the local political climate here required more attention.
DeleteI know this won't matter much but i will fire away anyways..Rev, your heart and mind are in the right(heh) place. We may never be able to agree on some things but know this : if anything, you have my respect. If only more people on your side were like this, this whole clusterfuck(both GG and the Hugos) could have been avoided.
Thanks. I'll keep fighting the good fight,
DeleteGood luck. To both of us. We will need it for the times that are coming.
DeleteWhen reading The Lord of the Rings, I wondered how Saruman and his orcs successfully overran the Shire. Vox (Saruman) and his orcs (Puppies) have marched on the hobbits of sci-fi, and the hobbits are reacting in exactly the way one would expect an arcane, insular group with an established hierarchy enforced by nothing more than social opprobium would respond to the use of actual force by outsiders.
ReplyDeleteBewilderment.
Hobbits still won.
DeleteMost people think of themselves as the Hobbits to justify acting like the Orcs.
Peter P.: I am always happy to find good, moral, thinking people in the world. People like you are precisely what is needed to avoid falling into the Rev's warned-of trap.
ReplyDeleteRev: You're one of us. You may say "But I'm a Leftist!" Like many members of #GamerGate. I'll add that Alinsky had it nailed. We aren't going to convert you, or radicalize you. Your allies will do that for us, because they value nothing that you genuinely value. This will become more and more obvious over time.
When you acknowledge yourself as one of us, you'll be welcome as you are. The thinking you have set out here will be greatly respected (something that might happen sooner, if I can help it). And I hope what you have done will be bright and right enough to burn through the emotions stirred up by the progress of the 4G war.
Athena smiles on you.
As a belated Sad Puppy turned Mad by the twisted antics of Trufen, I have to say your series is very good. Kudos.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteI've read all three parts of "killing Vox." Part of where the analogy breaks down is that, unlike a war, there is no end. VD will be VD until he's too sick and weak to operate a keyboard, and there will always be people who have enough grievances with the world to flock to his side.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not really a fan of "4th Generation Warfare." To me, it looks like the same old "keep fighting until the other side goes home" strategy employed by one Geo. Washington. The "delegitimizing of the state" part of 4G only seems to work in places like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq - places where the state was never very legitimate to begin with. But those are quibbles - overall, I find the series well-written.
Having said that, the more substantive issue I have is with "No Award" on the Hugos. Until and if we get slate-weakening balloting, the voter could be faced with a binary choice - give the award to crap writing or nobody. In terms of war, it's "we hold the bridge or we blow the bridge." Sometimes it comes down to that.
Thanks! I'm glad people have found it entertaining.
Delete" unlike a war, there is no end"
So, more like the War on Terror? Vox is gonna Vox, but his effectiveness can still be undermined. I'm arguing that the way to undermine his influence is to de-escalate.
"keep fighting until the other side goes home"
On one hand, I'm mainly using 4GW because it's how Vox thinks. And the extent to which 4GW applies in a purely cultural war (Hugos, Gamergate) is completely up for debate.
On the other hand, if we accept the "Organization as Proxy for State" analogy, the Hugos are starting to look more and more like Afghanistan. Pakistan? Egypt? A place where the State is no longer able to subdue its enemies.
Until and if we get slate-weakening balloting, the voter could be faced with a binary choice - give the award to crap writing or nobody.
DeleteAnd this is why the fight got started in the first place: "crap writing" and "the voter" as defined by the Chis Gerribs of the world. It's hard to figure an honest setup where Toni Weisskopf and John Wright's work are both "crap." Or one where their fans are automatically excluded from the category of Hugo Voter.
If it worked for George Washington then that's all the more recommendation in its favor. If the United States of America could be formed by such methods, then clearly they /can/ be effective and productive.
ReplyDeleteClarification - I'm against the idea that 4GW is (as billed by Lind) something new and different. It isn't. Veering slightly off-topic, I'm also against the idea that winning 4GW requires some special morality on the part of the state. Not to put too fine a point to it, but nobody gave a damn about all the German and Japanese civilians killed in WWII air raids. If the stakes are high enough - if it is in fact really important to win - then the winner will do whatever it takes to win. If it's a war of choice, then a lot of other factors, including moral conduct, matter.
DeleteArguably, 4GW is not something new and different. Arguably, it's the return of the pre-State era. Which is a possibility that I believe Lind acknowledges (Peace of Westphalia and such).
DeleteFurtherly arguably, 4GW will only apply in areas where the State was always a legal fiction, such as former colonies carved out by the West.
But still, even if we dump 90% of 4GW and Lind, there's still a David v. Goliath effect in play. No one gave a damn about German civilians because the Germans bombed the crap out of London; no one gave a crap about Japanese civilians because of racism, no wait, I mean because of Pearl Harbor.
What wonderful, delicious, unintended irony. Rev said:
ReplyDelete" If we can return to a place where the author's personal politics are no longer what matters most, then de-escalation has occurred.
I'm not saying that anyone should vote for anything other than the best piece - I'm saying that everyone should only vote for the piece they think is the best work of Science Fiction."
Do you not understand that this is the goal of the Sad Puppies movement? That this is our clearly stated victory condition? This is what Sad Puppies is all about!
Of course, Dad Puppies is distinct from Rabid Puppies. I won't presume to speak for VD, but I believe he would see this as an indicator of progress towards victory, not an end goal in and of itself. If the objective is to rid the world from the evils brought about by SJW style thinking and attitudes, having the Hugo awards given to the best works (as opposed to only SJW approved works) would be an indicator that things were moving the right way. A victory, but on a minor front in a larger war.
"Do you not understand that this is the goal of the Sad Puppies movement?"
DeleteYes, and I think it's a goal that works for everyone but the true SJWs. It works for the Left, it works for the Right, it works for the people who just want all of the politically motivate people to shut up so they can read Sci-Fi.
Remember, not everyone on the Left is a SJW, just like how not every Communist is a Maoist.
As you say, the Sad Puppies are not the Rabid Puppies. The Sad Puppies are reasonable, and can be negotiated with - and their primary demand is quite frankly something that anyone who believes in free speech should support...oh God, I think I just realized I'm a Sad Puppy.
Welcome to the party, mister! Pull up a chair, do you prefer coffee or tea?
DeleteLooks like it's gonna be a beer.
Delete"Oh God, I think I just realized I'm a Sad Puppy."
DeleteIt begins...
I enjoyed this series.
ReplyDeleteYou seem just as dissatisfied with the typical SJW type behavior that GG and the puppies are opposed to. Since both groups have leftist and progressives, why do you consider yourself an opponent of either?
Largely because I came into the battle with the facial understanding that "SJW = Liberals, GG/Puppies = Conservatives." I've come to see that the truth is more complicated.
DeleteI don't mind shooting at my own side when my side does something shoot-worthy. It's why the military has court martials.
I was just re-reading this series and I wanted to say two things. First, relevant to this post, leftists these days like to throw around the phrase "epistemic closure" quite a bit, but it seems much more a trap for them than for conservatives. A conservative could shut himself off from hearing opposing viewpoints, but it would require an enormous effort. He would have to eschew the regular education system, mainstream TV and movies, and mainstream news sources. It would be a very tightly-sealed world indeed. On the other hand, to not hear opposing voices challenging his ideas, all a leftist has to do is…not go out of his way to find them. Thus, much like what you said, intellectual laziness and epistemic closure are a much bigger problem for the left.
ReplyDeleteSecond, have you played Fall from Heaven 2, and if so, what did you think of it?
I haven't heard the phrase "epistemic closure" before, but it sounds exactly like what I was describing. It's extremely easy for leftists, leftists in positions of power above all, to cut out voices they don't agree with. See: Trump.
DeleteAlso, I've played Fall from Heaven 2 and am enjoying the crap out of it.