Hugo Drama IV - The Puppy Parade

[maarsen]

No I think Colbert, Oliver, and GRRM are/were great too.

This is why it is so difficult to see them selling out to the feminist narrative.

Jon Stewart was once great too. He sold out a few years ago.

I bet people here that support Sarkeesian also think Emma Sulkowicz isn't lying.

How much did they get? I am thinking of selling out, being close to retirement and living on a pension.

[SkynJay]

How much did they get? I am thinking of selling out, being close to retirement and living on a pension.

'All you know about me is what I sold you..' Tool.

The always strange claims of 'selling out.'

[Jerpp]

Ellen Pao doesn't control Reddit? Correct me if I'm wrong.

There are less non-heterosexuals in the world. They are represented in the media overwhelmingly. They are represented much more than their actual percentage in the population.

I am not white. I have no problem with the issues and experiences of non-whites being put forward.

Women in the West are not a discriminated against minority anymore. Women benefit from quotas and "affirmative action" type programs while enjoying equal benefits. In this way one could even say that women are a privileged class in America/the West

[David Selig]

Ah, a Gator in the wild. Cute.

Or is that poor trolling? Even Gators usually aren't dumb enough to think Reddit is feminist haven.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

So why do you hate Sarkeesian? Other than that she is a woman who is outspoken

[Jerpp]

She is not important enough to hate..

However, she has lied repeatedly and is part of a movement seeped in hypocrisy that actively looks to take away the free speech and due process rights of people that disagree with their narrative.

I honestly didn't care for or know about the "Puppies" till I read GRRM's blog posts about it. It is not the particular issue that I care about but the general larger issue.

It all comes down to true libertarian values such as true equality, freedom of speech, and due process, vs selective freedom and narrative driven "facts".

Do you really believe that feminism today means what it says it means in the dictionary? That is the core point.

One could argue that the Republican party today is the party for minorities and equality since it was Lincoln's Republicans that freed the slaves. This is obviously not true because the party has changed. So has "feminism".

[Kojiro]

Well, I have to echo Darth... I hope this is just Poe's Law.

[SpaceChampion]

There are less non-heterosexuals in the world. They are represented in the media overwhelmingly. They are represented much more than their actual percentage in the population.

So you're libertarian and want to police how much any group is represented? That's called hypocrisy.

All your "facts" are narrative-driven. More hypocrisy.

Dropping insulting labels and saying only the other "side" does that and you just use facts, more hypocrisy. Your labels aren't facts. They are not logic either. They're just tendentious narrative labels.

[Jerpp]

So you're libertarian and want to police how much any group is represented? That's called hypocrisy.

All your "facts" are narrative-driven. More hypocrisy.

Dropping insulting labels and saying only the other "side" does that and you just use facts, more hypocrisy. Your labels are facts. They are not logic either. They're just narrative labels.

No my problem is not to police a group's representation but to point out that a certain group is already over-represented. This means that this group does not get to cry discrimination and use a victim status to gain additional advantages. When a group is not actually underrepresented, but claims victimhood, then by gaining additional privileges it is in fact discriminating against other groups.

This is a neat trick.

When you claim victimhood and claim that the other side is discriminating against you then the other side's speech becomes labelled as "hate speech".

When you label a side's speech as hate speech, then curbing that side's speech does not become an oppression of their freedom of speech, but simply a curbing of "hate speech". When this becomes acceptable common practice, there is a problem because first amendment rights are being violated.

It is a "tyranny of the minority" situation.

Ofcourse there should be books about the gay/trans experience. There should be books about the female experience.

But there are books about this already.

Edit: I think that every label that I have used I have put in quotation marks. Not labels that I have invented.

[felice]

You, me, Vox Day, Brad Torgersen, Patrick Nielsen Hayden and everyone else knows that this assumption is the entire raison d'etre of the EPH proposal.

The puppy problem was what instigated the proposal, certainly, but it's simply a more democratic system whether there are any slates in the future or not.

Because it is tacitly accepting that slates are here to stay and can't be tackled by simple democracy - outvoting the buggers.

Because they can't; we'd need to outvote them by ten to one or so under the current system; that's not remotely democratic. A hundred people all nominating the same five works in a bloc have more power than a thousand people spreading their nominations around a hundred different works; even more so if many of the thousand only nominate one or two works each instead of a full ballot of five. Bloc voting is a highly effective tactic under the current system, so it makes no sense to assume it will just go away.

'Abstruse' may be the wrong word. However, it's accepted that they're sufficiently laborious as to require computer counting to make it practical. They're also not transparent to the voter. If I want to understand how my nominations (and everyone else's) resulted in the nominees at present, I have no problem comprehending that. Top five nominations = on the ballot. It's completely transparent. EPH requires me to nominate and then just accept the word of the Hugo organisers that the calculation is right. Opaque.

The nominations are already counted by computer. As is the final vote counting, which isn't significantly less complex than EPH. It would be laborious to count EPH by hand, but not impossibly so if anyone cared enough to put in the work; start by throwing out all the works with only a few nominations, because they have no chance of winning, and there aren't that many rounds to calculate. And the last few rounds of EPH will get published afterwards just like the current nomination counts are, so people can see how works get eliminated. If a work with more nominations than one of the finalists gets eliminated, it's because many of the people who nominated it also nominated something else which was even more popular and did make the final ballot.

We have to accept that the organisers are being honest about the points each work receives, yes; but under the current system, we have to accept that they're being honest about how many nominations works receive. No change there.

But, now I'm repeating myself. I'm not saying I won't change my mind, but at present, I'm firmly of the view that EPH is the wrong solution.

Are you (or anyone else) interested in discussing the longlist solution further? It won't happen unless people get behind it.

[SpaceChampion]

But there are books about this already.

So?? What do you want next? Ban the publishing of any additional book over a quota? How many do you want to allow? One? Two? That's policing a group's representation. The number of books of a kind has no effect on you. Calling this tyranny is more illogical narrative. A book does stop you from voting. A book doesn't lock you up in jail. A book doesn't smash your skull. One book does not stop another book from existing.

Film, television, books, music, games, and all forms of artistic expression are not a zero-sum market. There is no way the number of any types of work harms anyone in any way. The author of a piece of art has a right to express themselves that represents their own artistic concerns, including representation of themselves. Saying it is "too much" as if we have a limited supply is ridiculous.

Jerpp, on 25 Jun 2015 - 7:22 PM, said:

Edit: I think that every label that I have used I have put in quotation marks. Not labels that I have invented.

People rarely invent narrative themselves. You didn't check the facts, you heard a narrative using those labels and repeated it. She's "a bad person" is a label. I don't see any facts reported. I don't know who she is, and I'm not interested at all, but I do know it is ridiculous to label a person a "bad person" who hasn't done anything on the scale of murder, rape, pedophilia, torture, etc.

[Squab]

EPH isnt bad but from a quick look, i think there might be situations where a small bloc could concentrate on one work and get it nominated by selecting no other works rather than selecting other good possibilities. Maybe i dont understand it but that doesnt really matter.

If they were to do it properly, they would get some university maths department to come up with a system, or we could leave the gender studies department doing it. i dont really mind but its probably an important decision as to where the hugos might go from here.

[Squab]

double post