Post: #26

(08-25-2015 01:51 PM)Vicious Wrote:  The Sad puppies had a good thing going until Beale just walked into the living room and pissed on the carpet. At this point SP could have at the very least taken some stance to differentiate themselves (obviously they dont' think so and we see the result now), because Beale was getting far more out of the deal than the other way around, especially since he nominated himself several times.

What will happen now is that unless the Hugos change their ballot and voting process the future awards will be owned every year by SJWs.

Why should they have to take a stand on someone else's actions? Does Roosh apologise to the world for the actions of RSD?

Vox wasn't even involved when they Sad Puppies originally nominated him for best novelette. He got no-awarded, 6th place in a 5-book race. The story he was nominated for is possibly some of his best work, but got locked out because he's a 'bad person'.

If you go back, you'll struggle to find any evidence of Vox Day starting a fight. He is ruthless, but only when provoked. You only hear about his responses, never the build-up.


This year he'd decided to push as far as he could. He's nowhere near as moderate as the Sad Puppies organisers, and if you look at the numbers, he could have used Rabid Puppies to no-award even more categories. He didn't though - the SJWs did it for him, they burned their 'own' award to the ground rather than let bad people get their hands on it.


Look at the people who oppose him:



They have already changed the rules to try and stop the Puppies next year - I look forward to the wailing and gnashing of teeth when their knee-jerk reaction to badthink fails to have the desired effect.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #27

(08-25-2015 01:36 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 10:17 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote: The man is just plain nutty, anti-vaxxer should be an early warning sign.

I would guess you formulated that opinion without spending much time on his blogs. I find him to be one of the more sane/clear voices in the manosphere who has a firm understanding of the culture war we're in.

I formulated that opinion FROM reading his writing. He was picking fights with Richard Dawkins way before I joined this forum, a man that is way better at providing a scientific basis for his arguments than Beale.

Beale is the type of ally that is just as much a liability. Other than his anti-vaxxing stance he also holds some ill-conceived views on laws to be based on Christian grounds and while his ideas on restricting female voting are not uninteresting they are completely unrealistic and just weighs down the rest of his message. Nominating himself for the Hugos wasn't a smart thing to do if he wanted to make a point either.

SJW denounces you by association with Vox Day and says this makes you evil because Vox day is evil. Why is Vox Day Evil? Because SJWs say so. Logically, that reduces to: SJW dencounces you because SJW says so. There's no fucken way to win that with appeasement.

It doesn't matter what Vox actually thinks or even what he writes. Trust me, nobody who would care about some theoretical association with Vox Day cares EVEN ONE BIT about Vox's actual positions. You might not like him for his positions, but I absolutely gaurantee that no one else does. People who hate him, hate him because they are right-thinking SJWs who have been told to hate him. His cherry-picked "controversial" positions are just excuses for the hate that would be there either way; because Vox refuses to play by their rules.

Sad Puppies did not choose Vox Day, Vox does his own thing and doesn't give a shit. Indeed the whole result of the Hugos is exactly what Vox predicted would happen and exactly what he was going for. Vox is already busy building his own empire and the Hugos are just an excuse to entertain his fans, retaliate against people who have picked on him, and to win a battle in the SJW culture war.

Vox Day has many positions that I disagree with. Evolution, anti-vaxxing, and absurd conspiracies. I think he's mistaken about a great many things, in fact so many that I couldn't possibly argue with him about all of them with any hope of convincing him otherwise.

But he is still very logical, articulate, and skilled at making solid arguments without over-reliance on rhetoric and cheap persuasion techniques (which he is also very good at so you do have to be careful). When I (respectfully) challenged him on Evolution, he responded directly to the material points that I made. His argument failed to convince me (even a little) but even though it was fierce and confrontational, it was also a fair and intellectually honest counter-argument. Even in that Boston Bomber entry I linked, a specific objections come to mind immediately, should I be interested in engaging in a debate on the topic.

How many of his many detractors and denouncers have ever bothered to challenge his arguments directly? How many people have actually tried to engage in honest dialog or debate with him on the issues he chooses to care about? How many have bothered to read him carefully enough to understand what his positions even are? Feel free to claim that you have but the overwhelming evidence is that people who attack Vox Day tend to have a very poor idea about what he actually stands for.

Post: #28

(08-25-2015 01:36 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I formulated that opinion FROM reading his writing. He was picking fights with Richard Dawkins way before I joined this forum, a man that is way better at providing a scientific basis for his arguments than Beale.

Apologies for getting personal here, but you're kinda coming off like a defensive atheist who doesn't like Vox because he picked on your Anti-Religion bro Richard Dawkins.

Post: #29

(08-24-2015 08:47 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Right wingers aka the puppies used the process of the Hugos to keep out women, minorities, and other undesirables.

Since the Puppies themselves nominated women and minorities, they did a poor job of this.

Quote:Same bunch of dudes who all throughout college complained that there were no chicks coming to the anime night @ Chemistry building, are mad as fuck that cosplay bitches run Comic Cons now. And have no problem being skeevy with the few bitches at work .

Or readers who were originally drawn to Science Fiction and Fantasy due to their +2 SD and higher intelligence have increasingly found it dumbed down to the Young Adult reading level strangely-beloved of people who constantly-berate you for your lack of 'intelligence' and bark at you to 'educate yourself'.

Perhaps those readers are fed up with patronising morality lectures about whatever social issue is currently-trendy with morbidly-obese white women that involves a lot of transparent self-insert wish-fulfilment characters being voraciously sexually-valued by creatures that are far too unique and special to be boring and human, yet... oddly... choose her as their romantic partner.

Perhaps those readers are smart enough to recognise through the text, the black, unhappy hearts of the authors; their toxic beliefs; their hatred of anything resembling truth and beauty; and dark fantasies of violence in the name [insert currently-fashionable 'The People' here], whilst really being in the name of - as always - their own power.

As such, they write stories with little literary merit with little Science in their Fiction, but know if they say the right words and conjure up the prescribed political statements, it will be considered A Powerful Story and they will get praised as being A Good Person, because the quality and value of a work to a Cultural Marxist is determined by one question: "Does the work support the narrative?" A good work is one that does.

As illustration of 'Perhaps', the Nebula-Award-winning, Hugo-nominated short story, 'If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love'.

Quote:If you were a dinosaur, my love, then you would be a T-Rex. You’d be a small one, only five feet, ten inches, the same height as human-you. You’d be fragile-boned and you’d walk with as delicate and polite a gait as you could manage on massive talons. Your eyes would gaze gently from beneath your bony brow-ridge.
If you were a T-Rex, then I would become a zookeeper so that I could spend all my time with you. I’d bring you raw chickens and live goats. I’d watch the gore shining on your teeth. I’d make my bed on the floor of your cage, in the moist dirt, cushioned by leaves. When you couldn’t sleep, I’d sing you lullabies.

If I sang you lullabies, I’d soon notice how quickly you picked up music. You’d harmonize with me, your rough, vibrating voice a strange counterpoint to mine. When you thought I was asleep, you’d cry unrequited love songs into the night.

If you sang unrequited love songs, I’d take you on tour. We’d go to Broadway. You’d stand onstage, talons digging into the floorboards. Audiences would weep at the melancholic beauty of your singing.

If audiences wept at the melancholic beauty of your singing, they’d rally to fund new research into reviving extinct species. Money would flood into scientific institutions. Biologists would reverse engineer chickens until they could discover how to give them jaws with teeth. Paleontologists would mine ancient fossils for traces of collagen. Geneticists would figure out how to build a dinosaur from nothing by discovering exactly what DNA sequences code everything about a creature, from the size of its pupils to what enables a brain to contemplate a sunset. They’d work until they’d built you a mate.

If they built you a mate, I’d stand as the best woman at your wedding. I’d watch awkwardly in green chiffon that made me look sallow, as I listened to your vows. I’d be jealous, of course, and also sad, because I want to marry you. Still, I’d know that it was for the best that you marry another creature like yourself, one that shares your body and bone and genetic template. I’d stare at the two of you standing together by the altar and I’d love you even more than I do now. My soul would feel light because I’d know that you and I had made something new in the world and at the same time revived something very old. I would be borrowed, too, because I’d be borrowing your happiness. All I’d need would be something blue.

If all I needed was something blue, I’d run across the church, heels clicking on the marble, until I reached a vase by the front pew. I’d pull out a hydrangea the shade of the sky and press it against my heart and my heart would beat like a flower. I’d bloom. My happiness would become petals. Green chiffon would turn into leaves. My legs would be pale stems, my hair delicate pistils. From my throat, bees would drink exotic nectars. I would astonish everyone assembled, the biologists and the paleontologists and the geneticists, the reporters and the rubberneckers and the music aficionados, all those people who—deceived by the helix-and-fossil trappings of cloned dinosaurs– believed that they lived in a science fictional world when really they lived in a world of magic where anything was possible.

If we lived in a world of magic where anything was possible, then you would be a dinosaur, my love. You’d be a creature of courage and strength but also gentleness. Your claws and fangs would intimidate your foes effortlessly. Whereas you—fragile, lovely, human you—must rely on wits and charm.

A T-Rex, even a small one, would never have to stand against five blustering men soaked in gin and malice. A T-Rex would bare its fangs and they would cower. They’d hide beneath the tables instead of knocking them over. They’d grasp each other for comfort instead of seizing the pool cues with which they beat you, calling you a fag, a towel-head, a shemale, a sissy, a spic, every epithet they could think of, regardless of whether it had anything to do with you or not, shouting and shouting as you slid to the floor in the slick of your own blood.

If you were a dinosaur, my love, I’d teach you the scents of those men. I’d lead you to them quietly, oh so quietly. Still, they would see you. They’d run. Your nostrils would flare as you inhaled the night and then, with the suddenness of a predator, you’d strike. I’d watch as you decanted their lives—the flood of red; the spill of glistening, coiled things—and I’d laugh, laugh, laugh.

If I laughed, laughed, laughed, I’d eventually feel guilty. I’d promise never to do something like that again. I’d avert my eyes from the newspapers when they showed photographs of the men’s tearful widows and fatherless children, just as they must avert their eyes from the newspapers that show my face. How reporters adore my face, the face of the paleontologist’s fiancée with her half-planned wedding, bouquets of hydrangeas already ordered, green chiffon bridesmaid dresses already picked out. The paleontologist’s fiancée who waits by the bedside of a man who will probably never wake.

If you were a dinosaur, my love, then nothing could break you, and if nothing could break you, then nothing could break me. I would bloom into the most beautiful flower. I would stretch joyfully toward the sun. I’d trust in your teeth and talons to keep you/me/us safe now and forever from the scratch of chalk on pool cues, and the scuff of the nurses’ shoes in the hospital corridor, and the stuttering of my broken heart.

Note the wish-fulfilment fantasy of being sexually-valued enough to be married. Note the resemblance to romantic rather than speculative fiction. Note the awkwardly-inserted political correctness. Note the god-awful, hoary, impassioned prose of one inflicted with Victorian Sensibility. Note the reliance on clichéd writing, where a woman in 2014 apparently-believes guys who beat up [insert currently-fashionable 'The People' here] in a bar with pool tables not only drink Gin, but enough to be 'soaked' in it.

Note, further still, the underlying point of the story: the fantasy of extreme, murderous violence in the name of her beliefs, the clichéd psychological tell that seemingly-exists in the shrivelled-but-fatty heart of every progressive Good Person, that I'm becoming able to predict a person's political belief's based upon a single Twitter post.

And since a hideous outside is a reflection of a hideous inside, can you guess which person in this picture is the author?



Other Hugo Winners:





As usual, Diversity In Action.

Post: #30

If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love Wrote:(inane drivel)

I've always thought science fiction was about exploring new planets, the ultimate fate of humanity, and the many exciting consequences of scientific advance, as found in Dan Simmons's Hyperion series, or perhaps about expanding horror and romance with fantastic but eerily realistic elements, like in G.R.R. Martin's Sandkings and A Song For Lya, or even grand strategies and drama found in Timothy Zahn and Roger Zelazny's books.

Instead I found a rambling passage filled with sexual fantasies about a dinosaur that abuse the word "if" with reckless abandon.

Silly me.

Post: #31

(08-25-2015 03:19 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:36 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I formulated that opinion FROM reading his writing. He was picking fights with Richard Dawkins way before I joined this forum, a man that is way better at providing a scientific basis for his arguments than Beale.

Apologies for getting personal here, but you're kinda coming off like a defensive atheist who doesn't like Vox because he picked on your Anti-Religion bro Richard Dawkins.

Is the world really that simple to you? The everyone are just blind believers in one cause with no nuance?

I'm a pragmatic man. I hold as little regard for militant atheism as I do for self-proclaimed crusaders. Dawkins thorough research however is convincing and solid. Unlike your experience I find Beale's musings around christianity at many points to start with a pathos and then trying to work its way backwards to some kind of real world groundwork. If he's logical and articulate on other topics might very well be the case but I think the men's movement has come far enough to not need these half-way right characters to carry the message any more. I consider him a burden to a greater objective.

Post: #32

Quote:Dawkins thorough research however is convincing and solid.

He also shoots his mouth off a lot and says plenty of stupid things.

Personally I am not that interested in Day's musings about Christianity and have only a passing interest in Dawkins. I certainly believe that Dawkins' research is more thorough than Day's, but that alone says nothing about the quality of Day's actual criticism of Dawkins.

Post: #33

(08-25-2015 01:51 PM)Vicious Wrote:  At this point SP could have at the very least taken some stance to differentiate themselves (obviously they dont' think so and we see the result now)

This doesn't work. If you try to distance or differentiate yourself from an SJW target it's one step removed from an apology. You've lost frame and they'll come after you next. They hate you anyway.

The only way to stop these people is to not give them a single inch and take control of the frame.

Post: #34

(08-25-2015 01:51 PM)Vicious Wrote:  At this point SP could have at the very least taken some stance to differentiate themselves (obviously they dont' think so and we see the result now)

Association with Vox was used as a stigmatisation tactic because he correctly-predicted the motivations and tactics of the SJW Clique every step of the way. The Sad Puppies naively-thought that if they followed the rules that the Clique applied to themselves with regards to block voting, they'd be treated fairly and respectfully by them.

Vox, however, understands the rotting psychological issues driving their behaviour. This is why he encouraged people to not vote for 'No Award', because he knew they'd spitefully burn down the awards rather than share them with those outside the clique.

He was hoping for this all along, because now the Sad Puppies have realised playing by the SJW's own rules doesn't matter, that being fair and respectful has no place when fighting an enemy who believes there are no bad tactics as long as they retain power, the sense of injustice has turned them all into Rabid Puppies, ready to block vote as dictated.

Since now there is a precedent for 'No Awarding', and a now-united, pissed-off group, next year is where the fun really-begins. The Clique will try to change the rules so some pigs are more equal than others, but Vox is a smart man who will be thinking five steps ahead of the enemy.

Post: #35

Vox is going to be the one that gets the line that "SJWs always lie" some traction.

Post: #36

(08-25-2015 04:45 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

If You Were A Dinosaur, My Love Wrote:(inane drivel)

I've always thought science fiction was about exploring new planets, the ultimate fate of humanity, and the many exciting consequences of scientific advance, as found in Dan Simmons's Hyperion series...

And one might note that Hyperion did in fact win the Hugo.

In 1989.

Post: #37

Distancing yourself from bad apples on your side, works beautifully if you do it straight away and don't look back. Politicians/parties do it all the time when it turns out another senator has a fancy for Tijuana hookers etc and they get away with it as a result.

As the men's movement grow ever larger and receives more public support there comes a crossroad when you have to release certain radical ideas in order for a broader appeal. A current example that probably resonate with people of this forum is the growth of anti-immigration parties in Europe. Even though these have mainly grown out of extreme far right factions they have now tidied up gradually and holds significant percentages in many general elections. The men's movement is poised to do the same, it can stay a simmering underground club or it can start to reach its true potential, the average western Joe is waiting for something like this to come along.

Post: #38

(08-26-2015 03:36 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Distancing yourself from bad apples on your side, works beautifully if you do it straight away and don't look back. Politicians/parties do it all the time when it turns out another senator has a fancy for Tijuana hookers etc and they get away with it as a result.

I don't think any amount of distancing from Vox Day would result in SJWs supporting Sad Puppies.

If Roosh renounced all his previous work and embraced feminism wholeheartedly, would Aurelie Nix invite him back to Canada and triumphantly fellate him?

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #39

SJW support has never been on the radar. This is about convincing all the ordinary people in between of the superiority of your position.

Using extreme examples as a way of disproving a concept is a rethorical fallacy. Roosh has nothing he needs to denounce.

Post: #40

(08-26-2015 05:17 AM)Vicious Wrote:  SJW support has never been on the radar. This is about convincing all the ordinary people in between of the superiority of your position.

Using extreme examples as a way of disproving a concept is a rethorical fallacy. Roosh has nothing he needs to denounce.

Then why do the Sad Puppies need to distance themselves? When all the media coverage is produced in lockstep featuring the same lies and distortions, how can you reach ordinary people except through being controversial?

Look at how the Canadian media promoted Roosh's words to thousands of people:

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #41

(08-26-2015 05:17 AM)Vicious Wrote:  SJW support has never been on the radar. This is about convincing all the ordinary people in between of the superiority of your position.

Using extreme examples as a way of disproving a concept is a rethorical fallacy. Roosh has nothing he needs to denounce.

So the group claiming that writers are being unfairly dismissed for awards because of their political beliefs should publicly demonstrate that they're not voting for someone... because of his political beliefs? What, should they make a public announcement to let everyone know how moderate they are? "Awards should be given based on merit, not political beliefs, but not to that guy over there because he's a total shitlord."



This is the crux of why reactionary movements always fail. They think continually ceding ground to their enemies will make the general public eventually see them as more balanced and rational. It won't. Not only are you submitting to your opponent's frame - you're also reinforcing the hegemony they have constructed over which ideas are and aren't acceptable if you want to be a writer/musician/artist or anything else in the public sphere.

What were leftists doing during the cold war? Were they denouncing marxist academics, or were they championing diversity of ideas as valuable to the intellectual growth of college students, so as to push more leftists into positions where they could shape the minds of a future generation?

Post: #42

(08-26-2015 06:07 AM)Ocelot Wrote:  So the group claiming that writers are being unfairly dismissed for awards because of their political beliefs should publicly demonstrate that they're not voting for someone... because of his political beliefs? What, should they make a public announcement to let everyone know how moderate they are? "Awards should be given based on merit, not political beliefs, but not to that guy over there because he's a total shitlord."

Disassociating with Beale is not equal with saying he should be scolded or rendered ineligible. My world isn't black and white.

Quote:This is the crux of why reactionary movements always fail. They think continually ceding ground to their enemies will make the general public eventually see them as more balanced and rational. It won't. Not only are you submitting to your opponent's frame - you're also reinforcing the hegemony they have constructed over which ideas are and aren't acceptable if you want to be a writer/musician/artist or anything else in the public sphere.

Incorrect.

I gave a real life example of how this is not true and happening in the European political landscape right now. Fundamentalist adherence to a cause is something I expect of ISIS and SCUM-feminists.

There are always people in the fight that see any kind of pragmatic adaptation to a greater market as "untrue", "ceding ground" or "submitting frame". My favourite example of this was the 90s fight among the Scandinavian Black Metal scene that resulted in church burnings, murder and suicide to prove who was most "true to the cause" (some really tragicomic reading can be found on this). If you are that person tell me right away and I will know there really is no rational discussion to be had on the topic.

Post: #43

(08-26-2015 11:28 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Incorrect.

I gave a real life example of how this is not true and happening in the European political landscape right now. Fundamentalist adherence to a cause is something I expect of ISIS and SCUM-feminists.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but so far I've seen no evidence that dissociation from Vox would have done anything beneficial for the Sad Puppies.

He has his own following, his own slate, and is in this for his own amusement. Trying to exclude him based on outside pressure would have been a very poor decision.


No doubt there will soon be slates that exclude him and aren't 'tainted' by his presence, but they will be a considered choice and not a knee-jerk reaction to appease the shambolic creatures currently in positions of power.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #44

I'll say one thing. The masses are based on emotion not logic. Repeat the same stupid thing (for example: 1 in 4 women rape statistic) and they will believe it.

As much as I dislike Vox distancing themselves from Vox would do nothing to curb their "righteous anger". If they wanted to avoid that association it should never have been made in the first place. Better to stick to your guns and make the masses look at the unruly types in the SJW mob instead. They aren't Saints themselves.

Politics is a race to the bottom.

Post: #45

Doesn't read Vox, but knows that everyone should distance themselves from him?

The original story he got no awarded for was very good. It considered the topic on whether an immortal elf had a soul and was a very moving piece that showed how Christianity can bring two very different "people" together over their common faith, as well as the banality and destructiveness of reckless hate.

Vox has been slandered, lied about, and distorted for 15 years.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits".

Vox sticks by his friends, even when disagreeing with them, has a loving nurturing wife, multiple kids (not sure the number), and even when he disagrees strongly with people, as long as their polite, he has some of the best debates on the internet.

Vox is the epitome of Role Model, a good father, and loving husband, and a fierce fighter for truth, whatever the consequences that may befall him for sticking to it. I don't agree his always right concerning what the truth is, but he doesn't mind if you don't, he just fights back when people insult him and lie about him, and the SJW's almost routinely never fail to do so.


Vicious believes that civilized society has no place for men like this. I say we need more Vox's, and that if I was in a fight, I would want him standing beside me, and if I had Vicious on my side, I would run first, before he could stab me in the back.




O, and by the way, I'm a big Hard Science fiction fan, who when I was in school, was getting my brains fucked out of my mind by some very beautiful girls, while, the "Educated, bailout supporting, fedora wearing, sad sacks were in their rooms emailing their professors about how much they agree about how racist the Tea Party is.

Post: #46

Who cares about the Hugo Awards? They are totally in bed with the big publishers and totally ignored self-publishers.