Of course, I didn’t say that, but you just can’t characterize anyone who disagrees with you honestly, can you, Cat?

I think his “evaluation of the situation” is logical if flawed – I think his tone is so sarcastic and over-the-top that to believe he actually thinks Hugo voters are concerned about “gay polar bears” requires either an extraordinary level of willful blindness, or just plain stupidity.

” how dare the Hugo voters enjoy stories he doesn’t like”

And this is dishonest. Again.

You’re really obsessed with the mobility scooter crack. Like it or not, a lot of jokes are made about Walmart shoppers who are (a) fat and (b) lazy and so ride around Walmart in their free scooters because they don’t want to walk. No, I don’t approve of such jokes because I know there is no way to tell whether or not any individual is actually disabled, fat or not. Hence I have agreed with you, multiple times, that Correia’s “joke” was not nice. But you are being willfully obtuse in thinking that the thrust of his admittedly mean punchline was to dehumanize people who are genuinely disabled. Do you think Correia is (a) actually unaware that some people are in fact disabled and need mobility scooters, or (b) thinks such people are lazy and should be knocked off their scooters?

It was not comparable to making an anti-Semitic or racist joke, unless you classify “lazy fat people” as a marginalized minority, and I don’t.

I’ve been repeatedly calling you a liar because you keep saying things that are dishonest. I have noticed you concern-trolling at practically every blog where this discussion is being had, Cat. You aren’t even correct (I do not claim in this case that you’re lying) about the “people I like.” I don’t like Larry Correia – I don’t know him, I don’t particularly dislike him, but I’m certainly not politically aligned with him. Even more so for Vox Day. The reason I’m engaging with you with such heat is because the dishonesty and self-righteousness of the “Left” with whom I am supposedly aligned and have until recently been sympathetic has become so unbearable that yeah, I actually find myself rooting for the Correias and the Days even when I disagree with them. When you people give me an urge to hoist the Jolly Roger and start slitting throats on my own side (that’s metaphorical, Cat, it’s not a threat – I have no intention of actually engaging in literal throat-slitting), I am sufficiently exercised to start telling off the people who want me to be their allies.

“If you can’t stomach the comments long enough to hear what a typical WorldCon voter sounds like, let me paraphrase: “Fantastic! I’m so sick of people actually enjoying books that are fun! Let’s shove more message fiction down their throats! My cause comes before their enjoyment! Diversity! Gay polar bears are being murdered by greedy corporations! Only smart people who think correct thoughts like I do should read books and I won’t be happy until my genre dies a horrible death! Yay!” (and if there is beeping noise in the background, that’s because they’re backing up their mobility scooter).”

So he’s saying here that Hugo Voters 1) are so disgusting to read that it’s okay to ignore what they have to say 2) hate people enjoying fun books 3) don’t want most people to read 4) want SF/F to die out as a genre, 5) are disabled.

1 is insulting, but arguably a matter of taste. 2-4 are both untrue, and insulting. 5 is just bizarre; Hugo Voters tend to be older, and thus more likely to be disabled, but the majority of them are still not using mobility scooters and what on earth does that have to do with anything anyway, except that if you lump it in with the rest of it, it’s plain he thinks being disabled reduces the value of someone’s opinion. That’s what makes a rant. The length contributes to it because it gives him a lot of space to say untrue insulting things. What also contributes to its ranting nature is that these lies about Hugo Voters have nothing to do with the question of whether it’s good for the stories we produce and enjoy to include characters outside the gender binary. He has wandered off the subject and onto his pet peeve: how dare the Hugo voters enjoy stories he doesn’t like. The last part is trying to be insulting but just gives us insight into a side of his character he might have preferred, in his wiser moments, not to display.

I look at that and see a rant. I don’t even understand how someone else could say “oh, that’s totally a logical evaluation of the situation and has a neutral tone, and furthermore absolutely applies to whether stories with some characters outside the gender binary would be fun and interesting to read, or at least to let other people experiment with in peace even if it’s not exactly our thing.”

It is perfectly appropriate to compare someone taunting people he didn’t like by saying they were Jews to someone taunting people he didn’t like by saying they were *disabled,* which is what he said, whatever you may assert he might have intended. I deliberately picked Jews as a group that, as far as I know, he has no reputation for insulting, so as not to pour gasoline on the flames. Also I thought they would be good because people in the US tend to believe that negatively stereotyping them 1) exists and 2) is prejudice. However, I can see why this might have led you to jump to the conclusion I was calling him a Nazi; if you find yourself more comfortable using another unfairly stereotyped group typically used, or used in the past, as an insult in the US–if he’d called them Irish, perhaps or Indians, or Wops?–feel free to do so.

There are some really weird assumptions behind your assertion that he was actually taunting fat people in the first place, since it would require fat people and only fat people in mobility scooters to be lazy rather than disabled. Most people who can’t walk aren’t visibly legless. I had a trick knee for a while–torn cartilage–and there was nothing wrong with my knee from the outside. Even a doctor had to look at an MRI to see the problem, so I don’t see how you, or Larry, would be able to look at someone on a mobility scooter and say “oh they don’t really need that; they’re just lazy.” X-ray vision wouldn’t do it; you’d need MRI and possibly PET vision.

Sure there are fat people on mobility scooters; there are fat people walking around without them also. And frankly, a mobility scooter has got to be so much hassle that you only use it if you can’t get along without it. I was on crutches for a while and I set them aside as soon as I possibly could because they were a pain in the ass. But they were a damn sight less of a pain than a scooter. I could at least open my own damn doors, and go up and down stairs, and sit in ordinary chairs. So logically it stands to reason that people–yes even fat people–who use mobility scooters do it because they just *can’t* do things the easy way. They’re people who can’t walk and stand, or who can do it for a little while but not all day. Bin there; it sucks. People being an ass to you about it makes it suck worse. I doubt that changes when they’re being an ass to you about it because you’re both disabled *and* fat.

Now, once you can’t walk, it is really hard to get enough exercise. I had that problem with my trick knee, and I was motivated and otherwise in good physical shape at the time. So yeah, chances are you’ll gain weight. That’s not because you’re *not* disabled; it’s because you *are.*

So he may have meant fat people–not that I’ve seen any evidence for that in his other writing, but I don’t read much of it at a time, so maybe–but what he said, was people on mobility scooters. That’s disabled people. If he did that by mistake, it was a startling piece of incompetence in a professional writer, and the kind of thing he could have avoided with a minimum of thought about what riding in a scooter is really like.

Yes, I’m responding to you at length. I’m also sticking to the subject, avoiding insulting you despite the fact that you’ve been repeatedly calling me a liar (possibly imperfectly avoiding it in your eyes, but I have at least been trying), avoiding insulting people unrelated to the disagreement whom you like and I don’t, and avoiding bizarre exaggerations like saying anyone wants to stop people from reading.

Nevertheless through sheer length, this exchange is probably starting to become tiresome for some people, so I’m going to taper it off here.

Regarding whether Correia’s Vote Your Hate campaign made no difference because most Sad Puppies were uninfluenced by it, well, it’s going to be pretty hard to sort that out, so we’ll have to agree to disagree. I can certainly see why you believe it made no difference. But you know, something that makes no difference can be left out, and that would have been a good idea in this case.

You seem to be doing a lot of projection and/or mindreading. Maybe you are right that Correia is deeply insecure and privately gnashing his teeth that he’s not getting a Hugo, but I think you’re just hoping that’s the case. I’ve read what he writes, and if it’s all a mask to conceal his true feelings, he’s an awfully good actor.

But when he asks, throws a fit about how we’re prejudiced because we won’t give him one

Again, this is simply not factual or honest. Please show me where Correia has ever claimed that it’s only because of prejudice that he personally hasn’t won a Hugo.

4,00 words of rant is flying off the handle.

When does a rebuttal become a rant? I mean, you’re responding at great length to me here, based on a few brief words of disagreement. Are you ranting? Are you flying off the handle?

It takes more than a lot of words to constitute “flying off the handle.” The actual words matter.

Nope. You kept it brief and to the point, disagreed with the idea (mostly) rather than attacking the writer, didn’t accuse people completely outside the disagreement of lying, or prejudice, or trying to kill the SF field, nor did you sneer at the disabled. Well done.

Well gosh, thanks. But you are again lumping a bunch of things together, not all of which are true. For my edification, if I did write a 4,000-word essay about why I think McFarlane’s rant (can I call it a rant? after all, you’re established that logic and tone have nothing to do with whether or not an opinion piece is a rant) is nonsense, would that mean I’m flying off the handle? Even if I refrained from making cracks about scooters?

How shall I put this. If he’d called them all Jews instead, would it have been okay because they’re mostly not Jews? Or would it have demonstrated an attitude toward Jews that makes it hard to think well of him? However you want to phrase that reaction, now apply it to disabled people.

Leaving aside the inappropriateness of comparing Jews to fat people, you are missing the point. The actual thrust of his comment was “Some of my critics are lazy fat-asses.” Which, I agree, is kind of mean. But what you are trying to represent it as (“Disabled people are subhuman and deserve to be mocked!”) is dramatically worse, and thus dishonest. This kind of disingenuous demonization is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s not enough to criticize someone’s choice of words and say they are being unnecessarily insulting and perhaps not thinking about the impact they have on people who don’t deserve it – you have to imply that no, he is actually comparable to a Nazi.

See above: “I fully understand they mean “make me very unhappy” not “kill me.”

I was not suggesting that you believe he literally wants to splatter brain matter. Duh. I am suggesting that you believe (incorrectly) that jokes about “making liberals unhappy” means that that’s the real and only reason they nominate works by conservative authors.

See above: “assholes can make anyone angry; film at eleven.”

But they think you’re assholes. So…. basically it’s okay when you do it, but not when they do it, because you are good and they are evil? I see.

The Sad Puppies campaign goes well beyond “These are my eligible works; if you are planning to nominate, I hope you’ll give them a look and nominate them if you like them. As you well know.

So yeah, he’s been asking. Every year. Which isn’t a problem. He’ll ask again next year. Because even though he *tells* us all he cares about is the money, all the money he has earned isn’t enough to fill up that pit of insecurity in his character–which is why he brings up “not a real writer” all the time. I think it will turn out, if he ever wins a Hugo–or two, or five, that all the Hugos in the world won’t fill it up either; that kind of insecurity can’t be assuaged by outside things.

But when he asks, throws a fit about how we’re prejudiced because we won’t give him one, (when he’s been writing Four Whole Years) and then when he loses says “oh, I never cared about it anyway”–this is a long campaign for something he doesn’t care about. That’s what I’m saying.

The fox that couldn’t get the grapes walked away saying “I’m sure they’re sour anyway.” You’ll pardon us for seeing the resemblance here.

“Well, the fact that he doesn’t actually *want* a Hugo is something for his fans to keep in mind next year, when he again asks them to splash out $50 to get him something he doesn’t want.”

Again, you’re being disingenuous not in the literal statement of facts (yes, he does encourage his fans to vote), but in the implication (that he’s deceiving his fans, convincing them to vote for something he really doesn’t want, and his fans are unaware of his true motives).

No, I’m saying you can either believe his words–in which case he doesn’t really want it and people should remember that–or you can believe his actions–in which case he totally wants it; that’s why he’s been campaigning this long.

“And when you start out on the assumption that “a vote against me means you’re prejudiced; a vote *for* me means my work is Just That Good” you have a hypothesis that is not falsifiable.”

He hasn’t said this. He’s said a vote against him because of his political views means you’re prejudiced. I can’t disagree with that. If you vote against him because you think other books are better (I did), I don’t think he has a problem with that. But he’s never said that he’s better than everyone else and if you vote against him it’s because you’re prejudiced.

Never in so many words. But he’s left the data no way to tell him he’s just not that good. And next year he’ll be interpreting the way the vote went as prejudice. You watch. Betcha a donut.

“What he proved is that a Vote Your Hate campaign”

How is his campaign “Vote Your Hate”? Do some of his fans vote because they hate liberals? Probably.

Absolutely. You can see them rejoicing in the comments about how they’re going to make my head explode. Which is understandable, because that’s what Correia says also. I fully understand they mean “make me very unhappy” rather than “kill me;” that’s not the issue. Someone rejoicing in making me unhappy is someone I’ll naturally see as an asshole. Someone encouraging them to do so, as Correia did, is someone I’ll naturally see as an asshole whipping up hatred against me. You’ll pardon me if I summarize that by describing it as a “Vote Your Hate” campaign.

If he’d said “show how frustrated you are” it might have come across as a “vote your frustration” campaign–but Correia is not going to go for accuracy if he can spit in your face instead. I think it’s a dominance thing with him.

I accept that there are undoubtedly Correia fans who were unmoved by the appeal to their hate, and who voted out of enthusiasm for Correia’s work (and Day’s–there really is no accounting for tastes and even one of my friends, who is absolutely a good person, liked Day’s novelette best). Thanks to the Vote Your Hate aspect of Correia’s approach we’ll never know how many.

“flying off the handle over new ideas about gender”

I frequently see this claim leveled, and it’s also pretty risible. Clearly Correia (and even moreso Vox Day) are not too impressed by Alex McFarlaine’s take on “non-default binary”and they mock it, but to call it “flying off the handle” – implying they just can’t handle uppity women or something – is disingenuous.

4,00 words of rant is flying off the handle. If what he wanted to say was “I suppose you thought it went without saying but just so it doesn’t get overlooked, it is vitally important to write a good story also” you can say that in a sentence. I just did. Or if you want to say “I think gender is more deeply essential than you are giving it credit for” you can do that in a sentence also, expressing disagreement without flying off the handle. I just did. So not only can I *conceive* of disagreeing without flying off the handle, I’ve just demonstrated how easy it is to do it. If that is really what a writer wants to do.

As for loosing our shit, assholes can make pretty much anyone angry; film at eleven.

I think Alex McFarlaine’s essay was embarrassingly ignorant and silly as well. Am I “flying off the handle”?

Nope. You kept it brief and to the point, disagreed with the idea (mostly) rather than attacking the writer, didn’t accuse people completely outside the disagreement of lying, or prejudice, or trying to kill the SF field, nor did you sneer at the disabled. Well done. Perhaps you should give Larry, or the next Sad Puppy spokesman if they choose someone other than Larry, a few pointers.

“and taunting the disabled in public doesn’t help”

The crack about scooters was one of his shots at overweight people. Not nice, but it would be more accurate to say he’s taunting fat people.

Because disabled people don’t use scooters? I have some difficult news for you; perhaps you’d better sit down…

Not to mention that fat shaming is also pretty poor character. And, what may matter more to people who just want to see Conservative SF/F win Hugos, likely to piss off those fans who are fat. Given that about a third of the population is fat, I’m not sure you can afford to alienate that demographic. If character doesn’t enter into it for you. Just saying.

I would not disagree that it shows a lack of sensitivity, but characterizing it as you do as “taunting the disabled” when he is clearly not aiming it at any actual disabled people is deliberately disingenuous,

Does he get a lot of mileage out of the idea of making liberal “heads explode”? Yeah, but if you can’t read that as tongue-in-cheek,

See above: “I fully understand they mean “make me very unhappy” not “kill me.”

then I guess all his opponents who were saying very similar things …. they were just voting their hate, right?

See above: “assholes can make anyone angry; film at eleven.”

“And it seems stupid to have to point this out to people who are ostensibly literate enough to post here, but here goes. “Freedom of speech” means the government can’t penalize you for your opinion. It doesn’t mean other people don’t have the right to disavow your statements or avoid any association with you if they don’t like what you have to say. The fact that this has to be constantly explained to the “conservative” shows how feckless their arguments really are.”

I don’t disagree with you – entirely – because I agree that “censorship” gets tossed around a little too easily, especially by conservatives.

However, this is in fact one of the arguments that has pushed me over to the other side on certain issues. Because I also no longer agree that anything short of the government putting you in jail or burning your printing office can’t be censorship.

When people are calling explicitly for effectively un-personing anyone who offends them (or who is associated with the unperson, or who expresses insufficient levels of outrage at the unperson), and using all the social pressure they have available to silence opposing views to the best of their ability, I am pretty firmly convinced that the majority of these people would impose “real” censorship in a heartbeat if they had the power to do so.

The first is that there is One True Fandom and any one group of people are or should be its gatekeepers.

The second is that there is an objective measure of quality. All awards are ultimately popularity contests, and the sort of fiction Correia writes doesn’t appear to be that popular with that subset of fandom that attends Worldcon.

The third is that diversity has to be a zero-sum game, and that the only way to increase opportunuties for women and minorities is to take things away from straight white males. OK, relatively few people are stating this explicitly, but I see it a far too much in subtext.

This is not a case of sour grapes either; see Larry’s post from 2014-04-24, An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy where he declares victory regardless of the election results—not because he got on the ballot, but because of the reactions his presence caused: bad sportsmanship, slander, personal attacks, promises to no-award stories without reading them, the idea that VD’s story’s presence on the list “tainted” the rest of the slate, etc., etc.

And it seems stupid to have to point this out to people who are ostensibly literate enough to post here, but here goes. “Freedom of speech” means the government can’t penalize you for your opinion. It doesn’t mean other people don’t have the right to disavow your statements or avoid any association with you if they don’t like what you have to say. The fact that this has to be constantly explained to the “conservative” shows how feckless their arguments really are.