Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Alt-Right's Conservative Social Justice

slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

Here is an article on it from April when the 2016 nominations came out.
https://www.theguardian.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:59:30 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

... because it's completely different?

That's like asking: 'HOW IS A CLUB SANDWICH ANY DIFFERENT THAN A NARWHAL?'

There's really no answer that question other than 'they're completely different things.'

One is a person interrupting a speaker and preventing the speaker and the audience communicating.

The other is nominating absurd books for an award. If they stormed the stage at the Hugo awards, then you could credibly ask that sort of question. If they called in a bomb threat to the Hugo awards, then you could credibly ask that sort of question. If they jeered and catcalled the presenters, or pulled a fire alarm, then you could make that kind of argument and be taken similar. Because those things share the essence of the first act - the act of preventing communication.

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

No. And it's not really politicization, lol. It's a JOKE. I know that a lot of leftists have forgotten what those are, but they're just engaging in humorous hyperbole, poking fun at a perceived bias by nominating absurd things. It's more akin to this: http://newsfeed.time.com... than this: http://3o1vag3go95yqxhrk3yk15pv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com...

Here is an article on it from April when the 2016 nominations came out.
https://www.theguardian.com...

I can't imagine a serious leftist bemoaning the mischievous undermining of the self-congratulatory, pompous world of awards ceremonies.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:41:05 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:59:30 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

... because it's completely different?

That's like asking: 'HOW IS A CLUB SANDWICH ANY DIFFERENT THAN A NARWHAL?'

There's really no answer that question other than 'they're completely different things.'

One is a person interrupting a speaker and preventing the speaker and the audience communicating.

The other is nominating absurd books for an award. If they stormed the stage at the Hugo awards, then you could credibly ask that sort of question. If they called in a bomb threat to the Hugo awards, then you could credibly ask that sort of question. If they jeered and catcalled the presenters, or pulled a fire alarm, then you could make that kind of argument and be taken similar. Because those things share the essence of the first act - the act of preventing communication.

You are arguing on tactics. The Hugo disruption impacts authors in the genre who would otherwise win the award and rely on such awards to expand their careers.

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

No. And it's not really politicization, lol. It's a JOKE. I know that a lot of leftists have forgotten what those are, but they're just engaging in humorous hyperbole, poking fun at a perceived bias by nominating absurd things. It's more akin to this:

Only it is not a joke. it is an effort to protest what they perceive to be an injustice. Where are you getting this as a joke? The tactic may be whimsical and trollish, but in their minds it is very serious injustice they fight.

http://newsfeed.time.com... than this: http://3o1vag3go95yqxhrk3yk15pv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com...

Here is an article on it from April when the 2016 nominations came out.
https://www.theguardian.com...

I can't imagine a serious leftist bemoaning the mischievous undermining of the self-congratulatory, pompous world of awards ceremonies.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:20:15 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:41:05 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:59:30 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

... because it's completely different?

That's like asking: 'HOW IS A CLUB SANDWICH ANY DIFFERENT THAN A NARWHAL?'

There's really no answer that question other than 'they're completely different things.'

One is a person interrupting a speaker and preventing the speaker and the audience communicating.

The other is nominating absurd books for an award. If they stormed the stage at the Hugo awards, then you could credibly ask that sort of question. If they called in a bomb threat to the Hugo awards, then you could credibly ask that sort of question. If they jeered and catcalled the presenters, or pulled a fire alarm, then you could make that kind of argument and be taken similar. Because those things share the essence of the first act - the act of preventing communication.

You are arguing on tactics. The Hugo disruption impacts authors in the genre who would otherwise win the award and rely on such awards to expand their careers.

... you do realize that that's a different thing, not just a different tactic? Nobody is stopping anyone from publishing. Nobody is stopping anyone from nominating the majority of 'normal' books which have been nominated. Nobody is shutting down the Hugos. It's just a group of people who see the awards as politicized, and nominated some trollish books as a protest.

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

No. And it's not really politicization, lol. It's a JOKE. I know that a lot of leftists have forgotten what those are, but they're just engaging in humorous hyperbole, poking fun at a perceived bias by nominating absurd things. It's more akin to this:

Only it is not a joke. it is an effort to protest what they perceive to be an injustice.

It can be both. But it isn't 'politicization'. It's a protest against perceived politicization.

Where are you getting this as a joke? The tactic may be whimsical and trollish, but in their minds it is very serious injustice they fight.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't grasp the idea of a joke being used to address a serious issue, of levity being revolutionary. This is what happens when you become part of an ossified, humorless establishment ideology. The drive to revolution, to fight against perceived oppression and what the revolt sees as overwhelming odds, is necessarily a matter of levity. That drive almost always always has an element to the Quixotic to it; it's not rational, sane, or self-important. Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Benjamin Franklin all have this sense of levity to them. So do Trotsky and Lenin; Trotsky in an impish, cheeky way, Lenin in a more bitter sardonic way. The position of perfect seriousness, of calm repose and respect for institutions and power devoid of subversive mischief, is only tenable if one already possesses power. It is antithetical to the entire idea of revolt.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 4:27:57 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

Here is an article on it from April when the 2016 nominations came out.
https://www.theguardian.com...

This is a reactionary movement -- an ideological war -- and the alt right is employing precisely the same tactics and methods they purport to hate in order to win it. The rhetorical instruments required to make white nationalism and specious notions like 'white genocide' appear sensible are perfectly identical to those required to make obesity appear worthy of pride. These are parallel projections of self-pity married to ideology -- and they are easily exploited by individuals seeking political influence.

But I think it's ultimately a good thing that alt right conservatives inveigh against social justice with such rabid enthusiasm (even if it's rife with hypocrisy) ... their criticism will curtail its excess, force progressives to redirect their energies toward only the most serious and most defensible causes, and in so doing, refine their message, much like the grinding wheel sharpens the blade.

The apparent stupidity of social justice (at least in its present manifestation) is a product of complacency and ideological self-segregation ... conditions which enfeeble the mind, dull the skeptical instinct, and allow apparently stupid ideas to proliferate checked. Now that there's a boisterous dissenting group forcibly propelling themselves into the discussion, this will change. In time, concerns over 'microagressions' and 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings,' and other dubious abstractions popular among progressive-minded college students will be supplanted by more concrete and deliverable concerns regarding the actual welfare of minorities. The progressive is forced to renounce the tactics of shame and righteous condemnation, because they are no longer effective -- to abandon the defensive posture of the oppressed and arm themselves with facts and incisive arguments -- to look outward for a cause more noble and more consequential than that which personally afflicts them. We're all better for it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:55:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 3:20:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:41:05 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:59:30 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

... because it's completely different?

That's like asking: 'HOW IS A CLUB SANDWICH ANY DIFFERENT THAN A NARWHAL?'

There's really no answer that question other than 'they're completely different things.'

One is a person interrupting a speaker and preventing the speaker and the audience communicating.

The other is nominating absurd books for an award. If they stormed the stage at the Hugo awards, then you could credibly ask that sort of question. If they called in a bomb threat to the Hugo awards, then you could credibly ask that sort of question. If they jeered and catcalled the presenters, or pulled a fire alarm, then you could make that kind of argument and be taken similar. Because those things share the essence of the first act - the act of preventing communication.

You are arguing on tactics. The Hugo disruption impacts authors in the genre who would otherwise win the award and rely on such awards to expand their careers.

... you do realize that that's a different thing, not just a different tactic? Nobody is stopping anyone from publishing. Nobody is stopping anyone from nominating the majority of 'normal' books which have been nominated.

Notice you are using the word "majority". It does stop a number of science fiction writers from receiving a prestigious award which can be extremely beneficial to their career and livelihood. To those individuals it is just like a left SJW disrupting a speaking event only it is higher stakes. A conservative who has a speaking event disrupted gets the press. A writer who would have gotten a Hugo nominee but was disrupted because of this conservative social justice campaign is never known.

It certainly feels you are trying your damnist to rationalize this groups behaviors.

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

No. And it's not really politicization, lol. It's a JOKE. I know that a lot of leftists have forgotten what those are, but they're just engaging in humorous hyperbole, poking fun at a perceived bias by nominating absurd things. It's more akin to this:

Only it is not a joke. it is an effort to protest what they perceive to be an injustice.

It can be both. But it isn't 'politicization'. It's a protest against perceived politicization.

Where are you getting this as a joke? The tactic may be whimsical and trollish, but in their minds it is very serious injustice they fight.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't grasp the idea of a joke being used to address a serious issue, of levity being revolutionary.

I can grasp it just fine. However whether this conservative social justice campaign is performed with comedy or done dead seriously it does not diminish the fact that the out come is one of disruption and detriment to the science fiction writers who get trumped by these political nominations.

Again arguing you are arguing a tactic and white washing the negative out comes because you perceive it as a "joke".
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 12:57:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 4:27:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

Here is an article on it from April when the 2016 nominations came out.
https://www.theguardian.com...

This is a reactionary movement -- an ideological war -- and the alt right is employing precisely the same tactics and methods they purport to hate in order to win it. The rhetorical instruments required to make white nationalism and specious notions like 'white genocide' appear sensible are perfectly identical to those required to make obesity appear worthy of pride. These are parallel projections of self-pity married to ideology -- and they are easily exploited by individuals seeking political influence.

But I think it's ultimately a good thing that alt right conservatives inveigh against social justice with such rabid enthusiasm (even if it's rife with hypocrisy) ... their criticism will curtail its excess, force progressives to redirect their energies toward only the most serious and most defensible causes, and in so doing, refine their message, much like the grinding wheel sharpens the blade.

The apparent stupidity of social justice (at least in its present manifestation) is a product of complacency and ideological self-segregation ... conditions which enfeeble the mind, dull the skeptical instinct, and allow apparently stupid ideas to proliferate checked. Now that there's a boisterous dissenting group forcibly propelling themselves into the discussion, this will change. In time, concerns over 'microagressions' and 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings,' and other dubious abstractions popular among progressive-minded college students will be supplanted by more concrete and deliverable concerns regarding the actual welfare of minorities. The progressive is forced to renounce the tactics of shame and righteous condemnation, because they are no longer effective -- to abandon the defensive posture of the oppressed and arm themselves with facts and incisive arguments -- to look outward for a cause more noble and more consequential than that which personally afflicts them. We're all better for it.

Well said.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:01:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 9:54:03 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Why don't the conservatives just write some good science fiction?

Now, that is a mighty fine question. lol. Although who wants to read about an authoritarian empire who hates gays and imprisons people who burn the empire's flag.

OK that one may have been a cheap shot.
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 1:22:09 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:59:30 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
That's like asking: 'HOW IS A CLUB SANDWICH ANY DIFFERENT THAN A NARWHAL?'

I can only wonder how you thought of that. lol
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:00:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 4:27:57 AM, 000ike wrote:
This is a reactionary movement -- an ideological war -- and the alt right is employing precisely the same tactics and methods they purport to hate in order to win it. The rhetorical instruments required to make white nationalism and specious notions like 'white genocide' appear sensible are perfectly identical to those required to make obesity appear worthy of pride. These are parallel projections of self-pity married to ideology -- and they are easily exploited by individuals seeking political influence.
As a reactionary movement its proponents act in order to be seen and for their memes (white genocide, cucks, cuckservatives) to be spread; "alt-right" is itself a meme. The presence of a handful of Goebbels types -- e.g., Milo Yiannopoulos on Trump's Pravda publication Breitbart -- does not make it an intellectually legitimate movement. Moreover, to them and their consorts, the force of argument is not carried in the strength of coherence but in the power of the words used (death, genocide, war, terror, etc.). In short, they enter the field to muddy the waters and spread confusion. But in the confusion, they come out as the strong presence.

This is a postmodern Nazi movement, albeit prior to the night of the long knives; for now, they're merely loudmouthed and violent thugs under the banner of Trump in the U.S., Le Pen in France, or Putin in Russia. And it is by no means an intellectual vanguard seeking the exchange of ideas on the public square. The alt-right rejects democracy, equality, basic civil liberties, and it particularly rejects the presence of non-Whites in Western societies.

But I think it's ultimately a good thing that alt right conservatives inveigh against social justice with such rabid enthusiasm (even if it's rife with hypocrisy) ... their criticism will curtail its excess, force progressives to redirect their energies toward only the most serious and most defensible causes, and in so doing, refine their message, much like the grinding wheel sharpens the blade.
It's anything but good as they have no cause to defend (white power) and no message to refine (again, white power).
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:38:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 12:55:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:20:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:41:05 AM, slo1 wrote:

You are arguing on tactics. The Hugo disruption impacts authors in the genre who would otherwise win the award and rely on such awards to expand their careers.

... you do realize that that's a different thing, not just a different tactic? Nobody is stopping anyone from publishing. Nobody is stopping anyone from nominating the majority of 'normal' books which have been nominated.

Notice you are using the word "majority". It does stop a number of science fiction writers from receiving a prestigious award which can be extremely beneficial to their career and livelihood. To those individuals it is just like a left SJW disrupting a speaking event only it is higher stakes. A conservative who has a speaking event disrupted gets the press. A writer who would have gotten a Hugo nominee but was disrupted because of this conservative social justice campaign is never known.

It certainly feels you are trying your damnist to rationalize this groups behaviors.

Lol, I'M trying my damndest? You're the one acting as if, without being nominated for a Hugo, a writer is 'never known'. In order to be nominated in the first place, they already have to be known; it's kind of how the nomination process works. You're comically exaggerating the importance of an award in order to make the fatuous argument that the lowest voted pieces being knocked out in a few categories is analagous to someone's right to speak being shut down. To anyone not in your ideological bubble, this thread is hilarious.

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

No. And it's not really politicization, lol. It's a JOKE. I know that a lot of leftists have forgotten what those are, but they're just engaging in humorous hyperbole, poking fun at a perceived bias by nominating absurd things. It's more akin to this:

Only it is not a joke. it is an effort to protest what they perceive to be an injustice.

It can be both. But it isn't 'politicization'. It's a protest against perceived politicization.

Where are you getting this as a joke? The tactic may be whimsical and trollish, but in their minds it is very serious injustice they fight.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't grasp the idea of a joke being used to address a serious issue, of levity being revolutionary.

I can grasp it just fine. However whether this conservative social justice campaign is performed with comedy or done dead seriously it does not diminish the fact that the out come is one of disruption and detriment to the science fiction writers who get trumped by these political nominations.

Again arguing you are arguing a tactic and white washing the negative out comes because you perceive it as a "joke".

There is nothing to whitewash; the negative is negligible. You're assuming that your position is correct (that there's no political bias at the Hugos), and then saying that they are not protesting anything meaningful and that the absolutely minuscule harm that is inflicted is some inexcusable violation of someone's right to speak.

They do have a point. Orson Scott Card, for example, was one of the most decorated Science Fiction writers in the 80s and early 90s. He's still writing books, but he hasn't even seen a nomination since the early 90s. Did he suddenly display a marked drop in writing quality? Is it just a coincidence that his outspoken views against gay marriage, due to his LDS faith, during that national debate coincides with the sudden cut off of future awards? Harlan Ellison was also complaining about the awards being rigged over the internet in the 90s. The case itself is damning; the awards are politicized. There is harm being done every year; if it impacted a decorated writer that starkly, think of how deleterious it is to those who don't have any exposure or influence yet fall outside of the range of 'acceptable' opinion.

Your position essentially completely ignores even the potential of the harm caused by liberal bias, while conflating a trollish attempt to draw attention to that harm as a 'shutting down of free speech'. It's a comical position.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:43:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:38:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:55:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:20:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:41:05 AM, slo1 wrote:

You are arguing on tactics. The Hugo disruption impacts authors in the genre who would otherwise win the award and rely on such awards to expand their careers.

... you do realize that that's a different thing, not just a different tactic? Nobody is stopping anyone from publishing. Nobody is stopping anyone from nominating the majority of 'normal' books which have been nominated.

Notice you are using the word "majority". It does stop a number of science fiction writers from receiving a prestigious award which can be extremely beneficial to their career and livelihood. To those individuals it is just like a left SJW disrupting a speaking event only it is higher stakes. A conservative who has a speaking event disrupted gets the press. A writer who would have gotten a Hugo nominee but was disrupted because of this conservative social justice campaign is never known.

It certainly feels you are trying your damnist to rationalize this groups behaviors.

Lol, I'M trying my damndest? You're the one acting as if, without being nominated for a Hugo, a writer is 'never known'. In order to be nominated in the first place, they already have to be known; it's kind of how the nomination process works.

Knock knock pudding head. Never known by prospective readers after nomination. You understand why they put an emblem on a book cover that says "Hugo Nominated"? If you are going to be so obtuse, I'm done here.

You're comically exaggerating the importance of an award in order to make the fatuous argument that the lowest voted pieces being knocked out in a few categories is analagous to someone's right to speak being shut down. To anyone not in your ideological bubble, this thread is hilarious.

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

No. And it's not really politicization, lol. It's a JOKE. I know that a lot of leftists have forgotten what those are, but they're just engaging in humorous hyperbole, poking fun at a perceived bias by nominating absurd things. It's more akin to this:

Only it is not a joke. it is an effort to protest what they perceive to be an injustice.

It can be both. But it isn't 'politicization'. It's a protest against perceived politicization.

Where are you getting this as a joke? The tactic may be whimsical and trollish, but in their minds it is very serious injustice they fight.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't grasp the idea of a joke being used to address a serious issue, of levity being revolutionary.

I can grasp it just fine. However whether this conservative social justice campaign is performed with comedy or done dead seriously it does not diminish the fact that the out come is one of disruption and detriment to the science fiction writers who get trumped by these political nominations.

Again arguing you are arguing a tactic and white washing the negative out comes because you perceive it as a "joke".

There is nothing to whitewash; the negative is negligible. You're assuming that your position is correct (that there's no political bias at the Hugos), and then saying that they are not protesting anything meaningful and that the absolutely minuscule harm that is inflicted is some inexcusable violation of someone's right to speak.

They do have a point. Orson Scott Card, for example, was one of the most decorated Science Fiction writers in the 80s and early 90s. He's still writing books, but he hasn't even seen a nomination since the early 90s. Did he suddenly display a marked drop in writing quality? Is it just a coincidence that his outspoken views against gay marriage, due to his LDS faith, during that national debate coincides with the sudden cut off of future awards? Harlan Ellison was also complaining about the awards being rigged over the internet in the 90s. The case itself is damning; the awards are politicized. There is harm being done every year; if it impacted a decorated writer that starkly, think of how deleterious it is to those who don't have any exposure or influence yet fall outside of the range of 'acceptable' opinion.

Your position essentially completely ignores even the potential of the harm caused by liberal bias, while conflating a trollish attempt to draw attention to that harm as a 'shutting down of free speech'. It's a comical position.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:45:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:43:25 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:38:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/24/2016 12:55:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 3:20:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:41:05 AM, slo1 wrote:

You are arguing on tactics. The Hugo disruption impacts authors in the genre who would otherwise win the award and rely on such awards to expand their careers.

... you do realize that that's a different thing, not just a different tactic? Nobody is stopping anyone from publishing. Nobody is stopping anyone from nominating the majority of 'normal' books which have been nominated.

Notice you are using the word "majority". It does stop a number of science fiction writers from receiving a prestigious award which can be extremely beneficial to their career and livelihood. To those individuals it is just like a left SJW disrupting a speaking event only it is higher stakes. A conservative who has a speaking event disrupted gets the press. A writer who would have gotten a Hugo nominee but was disrupted because of this conservative social justice campaign is never known.

It certainly feels you are trying your damnist to rationalize this groups behaviors.

Lol, I'M trying my damndest? You're the one acting as if, without being nominated for a Hugo, a writer is 'never known'. In order to be nominated in the first place, they already have to be known; it's kind of how the nomination process works.

Knock knock pudding head. Never known by prospective readers after nomination. You understand why they put an emblem on a book cover that says "Hugo Nominated"? If you are going to be so obtuse, I'm done here.

Ah, name-calling, and no addressing of any arguments. That's how you keep the bubble strong =)
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:58:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:38:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
They do have a point. Orson Scott Card, for example, was one of the most decorated Science Fiction writers in the 80s and early 90s. He's still writing books, but he hasn't even seen a nomination since the early 90s. Did he suddenly display a marked drop in writing quality?


Well, actually he did lol.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:27:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:58:47 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:38:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
They do have a point. Orson Scott Card, for example, was one of the most decorated Science Fiction writers in the 80s and early 90s. He's still writing books, but he hasn't even seen a nomination since the early 90s. Did he suddenly display a marked drop in writing quality?


Well, actually he did lol.

Not really. His record is spotty, but some works have been well-received, and his critical reception has been on-par with recent Martin on some of them. Yet he sees no award recognition whatsoever for two decades, while Martin is feted coast to coast (I like Martin, don't get me wrong, but it's a blatant bias). It's simply because Card is persona non grata due to his open stand on gay marriage in 1990. He has been utterly shut out since then, even when he does create a good work (as many have noticed, Card is at his best when writing child protagonists).

There's also been a critical fetishization of realism in the last few decades, which I don't necessarily agree with. Sometimes I like realist literature, but it isn't necessary for a book to be realist in order for it to be good. I think that Card has suffered from that, but serious critics do still give him praise from time to time.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 6:00:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:38:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Your position essentially completely ignores even the potential of the harm caused by liberal bias, while conflating a trollish attempt to draw attention to that harm as a 'shutting down of free speech'. It's a comical position.
I'd say that you're whitewashing the alt-right, which is an anti-intellectual rejuvenation of the American Old Right and Dixiecrat South, with its fair share of bad European "ideas." What remains of the Old Right vanguard (Rockwell, Gottfried, Deist, or any member of the vapid Ludwig von Mises Inistute) is now merging with a web collective of trolls, conspiracy theorists and hipster millennials. Such is the zeitgeist. It is no longer a band of rubes and rednecks supporting the dismal Ron Paul in "fighting the NWO," but a movement drawing ideas from the Dark Enlightenment and beyond (Re: Caesarism http://www.debate.org...).

Inviting the alt-right is not a means to broaden the scope of voices and ideas. It is a way to shut down open and free exchange, much like having free speech include the act of screaming "Fire!" in a packed cinema. Excusing them as they poison the well in this way is in itself inexcusable.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 6:14:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 6:00:27 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:38:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Your position essentially completely ignores even the potential of the harm caused by liberal bias, while conflating a trollish attempt to draw attention to that harm as a 'shutting down of free speech'. It's a comical position.
I'd say that you're whitewashing the alt-right, which is an anti-intellectual rejuvenation of the American Old Right and Dixiecrat South, with its fair share of bad European "ideas." What remains of the Old Right vanguard (Rockwell, Gottfried, Deist, or any member of the vapid Ludwig von Mises Inistute) is now merging with a web collective of trolls, conspiracy theorists and hipster millennials. Such is the zeitgeist. It is no longer a band of rubes and rednecks supporting the dismal Ron Paul in "fighting the NWO," but a movement drawing ideas from the Dark Enlightenment and beyond (Re: Caesarism http://www.debate.org...).

There are two groups involved here, the 'sad puppies', who are not alt-right, and the 'rabid puppies', who are. Slo wasn't arguing about ideology, though, he was arguing about tactics, and that was the argument that I was countering.

As for their ideology, I think that the alt-right thrives in chaos and attempts at censorship, and that if they are to be moderated in any sense the answer is more controlled confrontation through actual debate, not more attempts at censorship and sidelining. I think that what growth they have seen is due mostly to the hamfisted and lugubrious response of a complacent neoliberal establishment, and that more of the same will just result in more growth. I think that there are also genuine revolutionary nodes within the alt-right which could bolster the anemic left wing if both groups would focus their attentions on the neoliberal establishment and not one another. In the alternate situation, the alt-right will continue to develop in an echo chamber, and when they do gain power it will be significantly worse for everyone.

Inviting the alt-right is not a means to broaden the scope of voices and ideas. It is a way to shut down open and free exchange, much like having free speech include the act of screaming "Fire!" in a packed cinema. Excusing them as they poison the well in this way is in itself inexcusable.

Well, if you assume that you're so grand as to be 100% correct in all of your beliefs that's a reasonable conclusion to reach. But that's an absurd assumption to premise any argument on. Such absurdity manifests in your ability to come to the conclusion that the broadening of the scope of voices and ideas is best achieved by narrowing the scope of voices and ideas.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 7:13:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 6:14:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
There are two groups involved here, the 'sad puppies', who are not alt-right, and the 'rabid puppies', who are. Slo wasn't arguing about ideology, though, he was arguing about tactics, and that was the argument that I was countering.
I thought it was implied. And I wouldn't call alt-right an ideology (https://www.marxists.org...). Rather, I see it as the backdrop of irrational, ethnocentric rage embedded in Enlightenment/liberal ideology.

As for their ideology, I think that the alt-right thrives in chaos and attempts at censorship, and that if they are to be moderated in any sense the answer is more controlled confrontation through actual debate, not more attempts at censorship and sidelining.
It's basically a web brigade, much like the Russian FSB trolls who hang around every social media site and debate forum on the net. But our zeitgeist makes us far more open/vulnerable to social media, which from now on takes a front seat to TV news. This select crew knows how to tweak opinion subversively.

I think that what growth they have seen is due mostly to the hamfisted and lugubrious response of a complacent neoliberal establishment, and that more of the same will just result in more growth.
The biggest lie of our times is the existence of "neo-liberalism" (as ludicrous as it is, some are hailing its death: https://www.theguardian.com...). It was never created, never had proponents or party representation, and now it's dead or dying. It's liberal ideology, classic and progressive, which entails a fetishization of the nation-state (with its implied ethnic ideal), expansion of rights (reduction of existing rights), the market (and it's strong state control), and representative democracy (mob rule).

The alt-right are those who see the underbelly -- ethnicity, restriction, strong state, mob rule -- as the true ideal and wish to enforce it. Meanwhile, the (progressive) liberals have a blind spot that keeps them from seeing what is generated by the system as such, the underbelly, and are scared out of their wits. The conservatives (or classical liberals) are fully aware of the this underbelly, idealized by the alt-right, but temporarily ally with the progressives to keep intact the system as such, knowing that it needs both aspects in order to function.

For us who do not have a stake in the current system, it makes for a perfect opportunity to further analyze the situation, perhaps discover a space or opening for radical change. And that is why the alt-right and other reactionaries -- those still blinded by liberal ideology, who simply want the current system to function strictly in accordance with their interests -- need to be kept away from the drawing board.

I think that there are also genuine revolutionary nodes within the alt-right which could bolster the anemic left wing if both groups would focus their attentions on the neoliberal establishment and not one another.
But the establishment is not up for a vote. Even in the Caesarist conditions of a Trump victory, it adapts to the new conditions and finds a suitable candidate to replace the strongman.

And I am very interested in learning more about the "genuine revolutionary nodes" of the alt-right. I welcome controversial topics (Re: nihilism http://www.debate.org...).

Well, if you assume that you're so grand as to be 100% correct in all of your beliefs that's a reasonable conclusion to reach. But that's an absurd assumption to premise any argument on. Such absurdity manifests in your ability to come to the conclusion that the broadening of the scope of voices and ideas is best achieved by narrowing the scope of voices and ideas.
That's me rattling the cage. I wanted to see whether you were of the burn-the-system-to-the-ground persuasion or someone who'd welcome the introduction of white-power agenda.

And as you're clearly neither one, it'd be interesting to see what you think we can make of the alt-right.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 10:58:20 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
And for anyone who is unclear about the core message, or basic kernel, of the alt-right:

"[President of the National Policy Institute Richard] Spencer says that the term is still flexible, but affiliation has some minimum requirements. 'Someone who is really alt-right recognises the reality of race, and the fact that race matters, and that race is an essential component of identity.'"

https://www.theguardian.com...

And "race realism," the minimum requirement for affiliation, is the alt-right's neologism for white supremacy.
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 11:50:35 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

Here is an article on it from April when the 2016 nominations came out.
https://www.theguardian.com...

Are you retarded? How is protesters preventing someone speak any way related to conservatives wanting a fair nomination

Imabench gave me this with love and I've been trying to find the special someone to give it to.

Slo1 I officially give you the copyrights to "Mental retardation: A Autobiography"
Im not a Nazi
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 12:26:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 11:50:35 AM, Capital wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

Here is an article on it from April when the 2016 nominations came out.
https://www.theguardian.com...

Are you retarded? How is protesters preventing someone speak any way related to conservatives wanting a fair nomination

Imabench gave me this with love and I've been trying to find the special someone to give it to.

Slo1 I officially give you the copyrights to "Mental retardation: A Autobiography"

For fks sake. You are going to have to keep that for such jackassery and ignorance of not understanding what the issue is. Go away troll.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 12:35:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 11:50:35 AM, Capital wrote:
Are you retarded? How is protesters preventing someone speak any way related to conservatives wanting a fair nomination [...]

Slo1 I officially give you the copyrights to "Mental retardation: A Autobiography"
Ah! Boris the National Socialist emerges. Greetings.

I'll show you how this works. The alt-right doesn't consist of conservatives; it's a web brigade of neo-reactionaries, Dark Enlightenment aficionados, and white-power trolls. They reject conservatives as "cuckservatives" who focus too much on foreign policy, traditional family values, and the market economy. You see, American post-war conservatism rejects white supremacy, which is what the alt-right is about (fighting "ethno-masochism" and "oikophobia").

There's only one way to deal with you hipster-Hitler trolls, Boris. And that's to keep you out of the salons of sophisticated society and, as you feed at the trough with the other pigs, make sure you don't make too much damage to society. :D
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 12:37:08 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 12:35:32 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/25/2016 11:50:35 AM, Capital wrote:
Are you retarded? How is protesters preventing someone speak any way related to conservatives wanting a fair nomination [...]

Slo1 I officially give you the copyrights to "Mental retardation: A Autobiography"
Ah! Boris the National Socialist emerges. Greetings.

I'll show you how this works. The alt-right doesn't consist of conservatives; it's a web brigade of neo-reactionaries, Dark Enlightenment aficionados, and white-power trolls. They reject conservatives as "cuckservatives" who focus too much on foreign policy, traditional family values, and the market economy. You see, American post-war conservatism rejects white supremacy, which is what the alt-right is about (fighting "ethno-masochism" and "oikophobia").

There's only one way to deal with you hipster-Hitler trolls, Boris. And that's to keep you out of the salons of sophisticated society and, as you feed at the trough with the other pigs, make sure you don't make too much damage to society. :D

Hitler would be proud of me
Im not a Nazi
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 12:39:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 6:14:46 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/24/2016 6:00:27 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/24/2016 2:38:56 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Your position essentially completely ignores even the potential of the harm caused by liberal bias, while conflating a trollish attempt to draw attention to that harm as a 'shutting down of free speech'. It's a comical position.
I'd say that you're whitewashing the alt-right, which is an anti-intellectual rejuvenation of the American Old Right and Dixiecrat South, with its fair share of bad European "ideas." What remains of the Old Right vanguard (Rockwell, Gottfried, Deist, or any member of the vapid Ludwig von Mises Inistute) is now merging with a web collective of trolls, conspiracy theorists and hipster millennials. Such is the zeitgeist. It is no longer a band of rubes and rednecks supporting the dismal Ron Paul in "fighting the NWO," but a movement drawing ideas from the Dark Enlightenment and beyond (Re: Caesarism http://www.debate.org...).

There are two groups involved here, the 'sad puppies', who are not alt-right, and the 'rabid puppies', who are. Slo wasn't arguing about ideology, though, he was arguing about tactics, and that was the argument that I was countering.

You are so poor at reading it is rediculious. I pointed out twice that you were writing. of tactics and I was writing of something else. I tried to redirect your twice off that I'll fated path.

That is what I get trying to get into a discussion with a guy who believes social progressive liberals are likely to turn Muslim.
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 12:45:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 12:26:53 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 11:50:35 AM, Capital wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:54:58 PM, slo1 wrote:
Two Alt Right groups have made their conservative social justice campaign to troll the Hugo awards which used to be a rather prestigious award for science fiction writers.

Their main complaint is that awards were tending to go to writers who promoted liberal ideals rather than conservative in their books. As result of their campaign they have been able to get non-science fiction writing nominated such as:

"Safe Space as Rape Room" by Daniel Eness (castaliahouse.com)
SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police by Vox Day (Castalia House)

Fundamentally, they are doing nothing wrong as the nominations are within the rules. However, how is this type of activity any different than protesting a conservative speaker on campus by interrupting the speech?

Would it it be wrong for Hugo to change nomination rules to stop this type of politicalization of the awards?

Here is an article on it from April when the 2016 nominations came out.
https://www.theguardian.com...

Are you retarded? How is protesters preventing someone speak any way related to conservatives wanting a fair nomination

Imabench gave me this with love and I've been trying to find the special someone to give it to.

Slo1 I officially give you the copyrights to "Mental retardation: A Autobiography"

For fks sake. You are going to have to keep that for such jackassery and ignorance of not understanding what the issue is. Go away troll.

No you said something more retarded than what I said

So you have to keep the copyrights. Sorry that's just how it is
Im not a Nazi
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 12:53:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 12:39:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
That is what I get trying to get into a discussion with a guy who believes social progressive liberals are likely to turn Muslim.
What can I say, they're not a reasonable crowd. They have one message (white power) and seek to overpower the existing narrative with a discourse of fear (rape, violence, oppression).

This is a rebirth of the kind of Old Right movement that was considered a fringe in inter-war America. And they are very few in numbers. However, social media grants them a platform to multiply their opinions in the same way Russian state-sponsored trolls infect social media sites and news commentary.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:55:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 12:53:32 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/25/2016 12:39:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
That is what I get trying to get into a discussion with a guy who believes social progressive liberals are likely to turn Muslim.
What can I say, they're not a reasonable crowd. They have one message (white power) and seek to overpower the existing narrative with a discourse of fear (rape, violence, oppression).

This is a rebirth of the kind of Old Right movement that was considered a fringe in inter-war America. And they are very few in numbers. However, social media grants them a platform to multiply their opinions in the same way Russian state-sponsored trolls infect social media sites and news commentary.

I thought your comment about all the odd groups in the confluence to give rise to this right movement was enlightening. It is a bit concerning too.

In this case I personally I don't have a big issue with this form of protest these groups have chose. The Hugo awards should adjust if they deem necessary since they are not a public entity. I am concerned though that people can justify this form of protest due to their alignment to the ideology, yet cant see how it is similar to some of the SJW situations they lament.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:55:18 PM, slo1 wrote:
I thought your comment about all the odd groups in the confluence to give rise to this right movement was enlightening. It is a bit concerning too.
Thank you. And yes, it is a cause for concern.

In this case I personally I don't have a big issue with this form of protest these groups have chose. The Hugo awards should adjust if they deem necessary since they are not a public entity. I am concerned though that people can justify this form of protest due to their alignment to the ideology, yet cant see how it is similar to some of the SJW situations they lament.
You may be giving them too much credit. These trolls see weak, non-violent opposition and use the tolerance and openness of others to launch their hateful attacks. They hate SJW because it grants women as well as sexual and/or ethnic minorities a constitutional platform to act and speak in opposition to their male, white, straight society. It is the pluralism as such that enrages them, that these minorities demand equal rights, not the specific content of an actual issue.

And, to repeat my stance, the alt-right is a monster which is to be fought not with tolerance but with shame and exclusion. Their only life support is the umbilical cord that bridges their access to the public arena. And, as before -- with Birchers, birthers, truthers and Holocaust deniers -- our best weapon is to point them out and, in so doing, render their body of thought null and void.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2016 10:57:48 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 1:01:33 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 9:54:03 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Why don't the conservatives just write some good science fiction?

Now, that is a mighty fine question. lol. Although who wants to read about an authoritarian empire who hates gays and imprisons people who burn the empire's flag.

OK that one may have been a cheap shot.

I nkow I'm late to the convo but Enders Game was good and written by conservative @sshole Orson Scott Card. [http://www.vice.com...]