If you've been hanging out on (certain parts of) twitter in the last two weeks, you probably had a sense of what was coming in this year's Hugo nominations. The rumor storm has been brewing furiously, and yet even those dark hints were not quite enough to prepare us for just how dismal this year's nominees would be. The organized right-wing voting campaign that last year gave us Vox Day, Hugo nominee, has largely swept this year's nominees, completely sweeping six out of seventeen categories, and dominating a further seven, including best novel and the Campbell award.
As this analysis by Mike Glyer shows, it was Day's choices that prevailed, with almost all Puppy nominees appearing on both ballots or on Day's alone. Our current slate of Hugo nominees are not a Sad Puppy ballot; they're a Vox Day ballot. They represent the views of a racist, misogynistic, homophobic troll, whose supporters solicited the help of GamerGate to achieve their goals. Using Sad Puppies as a blanket term allows the people who helped make this happen pretend that it comes down to nothing more than a political disagreement between equally valid stances (as Torgesen has been doing in the Making Light thread) instead of what it actually is, a hate campaign.
I'm more gratified to see that Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies didn't extend their right-wing slate that far down the categories than anything.
ETA: If you don't understand what I'm talking about, Abigail Nussbaum explains:
If you've been hanging out on (certain parts of) twitter in the last two weeks, you probably had a sense of what was coming in this year's Hugo nominations. The rumor storm has been brewing furiously, and yet even those dark hints were not quite enough to prepare us for just how dismal this year's nominees would be. The organized right-wing voting campaign that last year gave us Vox Day, Hugo nominee, has largely swept this year's nominees, completely sweeping six out of seventeen categories, and dominating a further seven, including best novel and the Campbell award.
As this analysis by Mike Glyer shows, it was Day's choices that prevailed, with almost all Puppy nominees appearing on both ballots or on Day's alone. Our current slate of Hugo nominees are not a Sad Puppy ballot; they're a Vox Day ballot. They represent the views of a racist, misogynistic, homophobic troll, whose supporters solicited the help of GamerGate to achieve their goals. Using Sad Puppies as a blanket term allows the people who helped make this happen pretend that it comes down to nothing more than a political disagreement between equally valid stances (as Torgesen has been doing in the Making Light thread) instead of what it actually is, a hate campaign.
...Either one of us is very drunk, or... It's probably me. I have not idea WTF this is all about!
...Either one of us is very drunk, or... It's probably me. I have not idea WTF this is all about!
Basically, some people who decided that the Hugos had become too inclusive
OK, I'm really not getting this Sad Puppies, Rabid Puppies thing...decided they were going to game the nominees in favor of white male authors. They had a great deal of success. In several categories, the only nominees come from the slate the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies put forward.
TBH what I see of US-centric SJWs and anti-SJWs on teh intrawebz reads as both sides being as mad - and parochial - as each other...The Breitbart article on it is fascinating; they cast this as a victory against the "Social Justice Warrors" and their efforts to exclude military sf authors from the community. Once you get through the bias in the article, what you see is a rousing cheer for people standing up for the oppressed white male SF author.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.