So, let me get this straight...

[agilebrit]

Say, for the sake of argument, I write a story that gets published this year. (And, yes, I do have a specific story in mind for this little mental exercise.) Say also that it gets enough buzz to actually be nominated for an award.

I'm really proud of this story. I worked hard on it. I think it says important things and deals with important issues, while still being a fun read (for certain values of "fun"). It's one of the best things (if not the best thing) I've ever written. I'd be thrilled if it was nominated.

But. Suddenly, I'm supposed to turn this nomination down (on a story I adore, remember) because someone I have no control over put me on a slate? I'm supposed to think my nomination is "tainted" somehow, and should have an asterisk next to it?

You know what, how about: no, fuck that.

And if it happens (hahaha!), I'd be super happy if folks would let me be excited about it for five whole seconds before exploding in rage.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

They're basically trying to turn guilt by association into a moral principle -- and it's "guilt" of no crime beyond Disagreeing With Them.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Guilt by association, and, apparently, not Denouncing Vox Day to the Commissars. "If they'd just say how Very Wrong he is...!"

Oh, bullshit, are you kidding me with this? These people are the kings and queens of Moving the Fucking Goalposts. Once they get Larry and Brad to denounce Vox, they'll stop their hateful rhetoric?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Check this out. And he's actually almost reasonable, by the standards of Scalzi's defenders.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I really love the people who are going to (basically) slate-vote "No Award," while vehemently denying that's what they're doing. Because that's soooo useful.

Well. I bought my supporting membership. If Stuff Happens (stuff I can't talk about yet, ARGH) I'll be actually attending. I'll vote honestly. If anything knocks "Skin Game" off the top of my ballot, I'll be surprised, but hey, it'll give me a new author to follow. I read Annie Bellet's short already, and it's amazing.

The people who plan on destroying the Hugo in order to save it (without reading any of the "slate" stories) are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, because they're going to miss out on some great fiction.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Yeah, once Vox is sufficiently Denounced Larry would become the new hate object.

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. They've already got a hate boner for him too; they'll just shift aim.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

That and associating with Vox Day, who stalked my friend via my Youtube favorites and posted her videos on his blog in an attempt to humiliate her.

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

Well, Andrew, maybe if you weren't a great big ol' stalker yourself, it wouldn't have happened.

But you can't seem to stay away from spaces you're not welcome in, or stop yourself from talking about people you hate in spaces that have nothing to do with them. Perhaps you should see to your own egregiously bad behavior before pointing fingers at others.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

1. How is this entry not about Vox?
2. How does anything I say make Vox's stalking of my friend at all acceptable?

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

1. This entry is about Slates In General, not Rabid Puppies in particular. I'm seeing a lot of people saying that "slates break the Hugos, so I'm never voting for anything that's on a slate no matter whose slate it is." So. No. It's not about Vox, it's about the Larger Issue. Try, for once in your life, to wrap your brain around the concept.

2. I don't know, why is your stalking of Rory justified, at all, under any circumstances? The woman has told you under no uncertain terms to leave her the fuck alone. And yet you persist. So if someone, in an effort to find out who you are and where you hang your hat, finds someone whom they think works with you, and asks them a question so as to easier sic the police on you, I'm not sure that's a total waste of time.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

And I told Vox in no uncertain terms to leave Emma the fuck alone. Funny that.

You can't have it both ways. Brad gripes about guilt by association yet you're saddling Emma with guilt by association?

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

No one thinks Emma is "guilty" of anything, I don't think. She has the misfortune of working with you, so I'm sure people feel sorry for her, but that's really all.

So. Anyway. I'm not here as an apologist for Vox, nor will I Denounce Him To The Commissars. I already told you this entry is not about him, and I'm not going to allow you to derail it into another 800-comment behemoth where you get your head righteously handed to you. Go obsess about him someplace else.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

And I'm sure she pisses on your sympathy for her.

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

Whatever, Andrew. The only reason you're here shitting up my LJ is because everyone else has banned you.

I've got my own finger hovering over the Ban Button.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

You know why she doesn't want your sympathy? Because she's capable of judging me based on what she sees, not what people like Vox and Drow tell her.

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

Whoopedoo for her. Why do I care what a total stranger an entire country away from me thinks? I'm glad you have someone in your life who actually tolerates you. So why don't you go talk to her instead of poking bears?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you're nicer in person than online. It would be difficult for you to be nastier, after all, without winding up in prison or dead, or in prison then dead.

Here's a hint: try being nicer online as well. People might like you more if you did that.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Kindness goes both ways.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Yama ... think seriously about this. Have I ever done anything worse to you than sarcastically argue against your posts, or ban you when you THREATENED people? Keep in mind, I'm not the Evil Overlord of my online friends, and the one who did the worst to you isn't even one of my friends.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

If it wasn't for your "investigating," Vox wouldn't even know my name.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm not the one who did the investigating. In addition, Yama, what special right do you have to know the names and general locations of everyone else, with no one else having the right to know yours? You're not fundamentally any different from me, or Rory, or Vox. We're all human beings, and ethical principles operate in both directions.

The reason so many people hate you online is that you imagine that it's all right for you to behave in a rude and sometimes criminal manner to others, including blatant stalking and even hacking; but that no one else has the right to know who you are or do anything (even wholly legal actions) to you in return. I know you were raised rich, but sorry: that really doesn't give you special extra-minty rights under either law or custom (America's a relatively egalitarian society and always has been).

The part I know the most about is your stalking, hacking at and threatening Rory. This is utterly despicable of you, and it's obviously despicable to hundreds of other people online who know about it. How do they know about it? Because, unlike you, Rory has lots of online friends and friendly acquaintances, and they don't appreciate what you've done to her. I don't appreciate it either. Some of her friends are in a position to initiate legal actions against you, as you've already found out.

Why do you want to be surrounded by enemies? Seriously, what do you think you're accomplishing by your actions? Do you realize that in your previous campaign of harassment, against the Glaede sisters, you manged to make a bunch of genuine, even violent neo-Nazis look like nice and reasonable guys by comparison with you? You are, to any cause you attach yourself, a huge lead weight in the swimming-match of politics!

You don't have to be. You could have friends, instead of foes.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

I never made my name public. I don't make full names public under most circumstances. Unless it's a bandcamp or artist page that uses their full name.
And spoiler alert, I never hacked anyone. The only hacking that happened is when a member of Vanguard News Network hacked my old e-mail account. Can you point me to any hacking I've done? No, because it never happened.

And the campaign about Prussian Blue was all Something Awful, not me. My part in it was all "wow, this is the most ridiculous thing ever. Also, they suck."

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Who claimed Emma was "guilty" of anything?

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Vox did when he stalked her through my Youtube favorites and posted her videos on his blog.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Am i Vox? Is Julie? And did even Vox "harm" her by posting links to videos that were already online?

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Vox e-mailed her and some of his douchebag followers made nasty comments and rape threats.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Emma has no special right to not be e-mailed by Vox. As for "some of his douchebag followers," I can believe it, but what makes you imagine that Vox mind-controls everyone who reads his blog? Or even comments on it? The thing you're not getting is that no one controls their online "followers." Vox is a writer and journalist, not the leader of a medieval war-band.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Yet the entire reason you're going after me is because I said some mean things to Drow.

Not even threats. Just hammering the point that if you're a minority and you side with hardcore racists against another minority, they'll go after you too.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

In order:

(1) I've never "gone after you."

(2) Filipinas have the same right to disagree with you as do Russians or Argentinians or Nigerians or Americans.

(3) Rory never sided with "hardcore racists." Vox isn't a "hardcore" racist -- if you imagine him to be such, you have a hilariously naive view of "hardcore."

(4) The notion that members of one "minority" are morally obligated to side with the members of another "minority" simply because of their mutual ascribed "minority" status is not only silly, but tremendously racist on your own part -- you are dividing the world into "whites" and "minorities," and imagining that the distinction actually means something.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

3. Are you serious? I know there are people more hardcore in their racism than Vox but...

4. Yes, I am saying that minorities should not side with people who's stated goal is to create a whites-only nation when they are taking actions against other minority groups they dislike.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm serious. Vox Day neither calls for nor condones acts of violence against others justified on grounds of one's race or one's victim's race. I know you know your history better than to imagine merely stating that races differ on the average in capabilities of their members is "hardcore," unless you have a very low threshold for "hardcore."

Yes, I am saying that minorities should not side with people who's stated goal is to create a whites-only nation when they are taking actions against other minority groups they dislike.

Then you are arguing that members of "minority" groups are morally obliged to restrict their political choices in ways which whites are not obliged, which is to say that the members of those minority groups are by virtue of their racial identity morally inferior in their freedom of action. That is racism, pure and simple.

You are also trivializing any racial animosities in which neither of the parties involved fit your definition of "white."

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Spoiler alert, he has. And since I don't associate with fascists, nazis, and other assorted rabid nationalists, I do have a low threshold.

To hell with their animosities, they shouldn't be siding with the scum of the scum. Perhaps I'll ask Rachel what she thinks of not putting animosities aside against a greater enemy.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

And since I don't associate with fascists, nazis, and other assorted rabid nationalists ...

What do you imagine are the PLO, Hamas or Hezbullah?

To hell with their animosities, they shouldn't be siding with the scum of the scum.

Ah, so "they" (members of "minorities") should just put aside their opinions as to who there enemies are, and simply agree with yours? What gives you the right to do "their" thinking for them?

Perhaps I'll ask Rachel what she thinks of not putting animosities aside against a greater enemy.

Don't know who is this "Rachel" whose opinions are of such cosmic significance, but it seems not to enter your head that the greatest animosities are often between peoples who actually border the other's territory. For instance, to the Indians and Pakistanis, each other is the greatest enemy, not Northwestern Europeans or Americans, who by comparison have little interest in attacking them. Even racist anti-Aryan Europeans or Americans are less of a threat to the Indians and Pakistanis than are their fellow Aryans of the opposite religious fanaticism.

And that's reality, and you're simply being absurd by claiming the right to think for them.

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

I was wondering "who's Rachael" myself. Andrew has this terrible habit of bringing up uninvolved people into threads that have nothing to do with them, and then expecting us to know who they are. He has no idea what a wholly weird non sequitur that is every time he does it.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Who cares? When the Indians and Pakistanis are in North America or Europe or Australia, their greatest enemy is not each other but white nationalists like Day.

Don't know who is this "Rachel" whose opinions are of such cosmic significance,
You of all people.

Treblinka had Ukrainian guards, the result of not putting animosities aside against a greater enemy.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Who cares? The Indians and Pakistanis might care, since most of them live in India and Pakistan, rather than North America or Europe or Australia. And actually, in Britain, the greatest threat to Indian Hindu immigrants is currently Muslims, rather than white nationalists.

Your assumption that hostile whites are always a "greater" enemy than hostile non-whites is implicitly based on profoundly racist assumptions of white superiority, even supremacy. Right now a Filipino, for instance, must logically worry far more about the Moros and the Red Chinese than about the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-Nazis.

You're not talking about Rachel freaking Corrie, are you? The idiot who got herself killed by sitting down in front of an operating, armored bulldozer whose driver had only a limited field of view, because she sympathized with the Nazi-like Hamas against Israeli Jews because they were Jews?

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about India and Pakistan, I'm talking about white dominated countries, and if the Filipinos want to side with the white nationalists against Moros and Chinese, then they are worse than fools.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I know you're talking about white dominated countries, because to you -- convinced as you are that only whites are "really real" -- countries dominated by non-whites are never going to control their own destinies anyway. The degree of blindness you manifest to your own racism is truly amazing.

The Philippines are objectively threatened by the Moro Muslim rebellion, and by the Red Chinese military. They are not, for the most part, threatened by white racism.

You're also assuming that white racists have to hate all "non-white" groups equally. What prevents, for instance, a white racist group from considering Filipinos okay, but hating Arabs? Or, if bigoted on the basis of religion rather than race, hating Pakistani Muslims but having no problem with Hindu Indians?

And why, in those cases, would the Filipinos or Indians then logically side with those who want to KILL them against the white racists or Christian bigots who don't want to kill them?

You are looking at non-whites and non-Christians as just so many pawns to be moved in your political and diplomatic games, and ignoring that they are themselves PLAYERS.

[yamamanama.livejournal.com]

Once again, I'm not talking about their home countries, I'm talking about Filipinos abroad, like Drow, who are siding with people like Vox Day.

Nothing prevents white nationalists from thinking Filipinos are pretty ok but supporting genocide on Arabs or thinking Hindu Indians are cool but hating the Pakistanis. But the Filipinos and Indians shouldn't side with them. What are the white nationalists going to say once all the Pakistanis and Arabs are gone?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You don't grasp why "guilt by association" isn't a sound moral principle? Especially when the "association" consists of occasionally reading and commenting to someone else's blog?

Why Yama, by that standard, you're guilty of associating with me. And Julie. And you would be guilty of associating with a lot more people, only most people don't tolerate you posting n their blogs.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I'm going to read, vote, and look forward to seeing your story. If we have more drama next year (if, hollow laugh) I'm still going to congratulate all the nominees and give them a fair read.

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

The story I'm thinking about is a novella, which are difficult to get published, and so there are commensurately fewer to choose from to get on the ballot. So there's a chance of it happening. Considering the subject matter, it might be something the Puppies (both Sad and Rabid) might enjoy.

And I will be damned if I will let anyone spoil anything for me if it happens.