I’m sorry I’m so late with this post. This time there’s really nothing wrong, except for catching up on things that were thrown out of rhythm in the last couple of days. (You know, you have a rhythm in a house, like who does dishes, and such. It’s all off between working on the other house, and the minor illnesses/accidents of the last few days.) When one thing goes off everything gets off kilter, in this case to the point of my coming to my office (which is air-conditioning intensive) without a coat and sitting here trying to write the Mad Genius Club post and wondering why I’m freezing.
Anyway, all that is incidental and doesn’t matter, and normally I would do a blast from the past. Normally I certainly wouldn’t be wading into the Hugo mess because it’s inside baseball, it’s tiring, and who the heck cares who isn’t in this field? In fact, how many people in this field really care? I care only to a certain extent, as in the previous regime I had long ago written off the Hugo and in the present mess, I never expect to get one. Beyond which I don’t know how much importance the Hugo has for sales. The Prometheus greatly helped mine, but even there, I think the results vary.
But I’ve been on a slow simmer since the Irene Gallo comments, and that was brought to a boil yesterday.
Why yesterday, you ask?
Because the hypocritical scum (I apologize to any scum I might have offended) who runs file 770 has been gleefully linking anything of mine that even uses the letters H-u-g- and o in the same paragraph, but yesterday I wrote about his hypocrisy in taking a sentence of mine out of context and linking it with a clever-daft punchline of the “Hydrophobia that falls on you from nowhere” to imply I was homophobic.
Did he link yesterday’s post? Are you kidding? Even though he’s fairly sure his blinded followers will rarely click through, he couldn’t afford to explode his narrative. He’d on the flimsiest of “evidence” – i.e. my refusal to go into details on same sex marriage and other accommodations for more “exotic” orientations in a post to which it wasn’t even incidental – declared me homophobic, and he couldn’t risk the narrative being exploded.
I confess that when my Baen colleagues were making fun of file 770 and going on about “Mike Glyer, Fifty Hugos” (the number of nominations he’d had) I thought they were being a little mean. After all, the man was just well-intentioned and blinkered, and believed the narrative.
Guys, I was wrong, you were right. He’s not deceived, but he willfully deceives. He is not a useful idiot, but one who would seek to make idiots out of others. He’s not the sheep, but the judasgoat.
Why does that matter to me? Why do I get so upset if it’s not true? Isn’t it an axiom (at least on the left side of politics) that you only get upset if it’s secretly true?
No. It might be an axiom on the left side, but consider how their leaders lie and every other stupid thing they consider an axiom. It’s sort of a facile pseudo-Freudian thing, and I can disprove it in a moment. Say I accused you of being a pedophile. Would you get mad because you secretly want to do it? Or because it’s a repulsive lie? Say I accused you of killing puppies for fun. Do you have to actually want to do it to be mad? Or would you get madder if you actually spend all your time volunteering to rescue puppies in shelters?
Accusing me of being homophobic is not QUITE as stupid as accusing Brad of being racist. I think – that I know, I haven’t interrogated the boys, because it’s none of my business – no one in my nuclear family is gay. HOWEVER for the first 22 years of our kids’ lives, i.e. while we had a minor child, the designated guardians and executors of our wills were a lesbian couple. (They still are, but we need to change that now both boys are legal adults.) Beyond that, we’ve always had gay friends, not because we sought them out but because of where we lived or worked and because frankly we don’t care. Neither of us intends on sleeping with our friends, and our only contact with our friends’ preferences in that regard is to treat their partners as an extended part of our circle and to approve/disapprove of them according to how they treat our friends. That’s it.
Furthermore, I don’t think it’s possible for anyone, EVER to even read the descriptions of my books and think I’m homophobic.
Which is why I’m furious. Because truth matters and because Mike Glyer Fifty Hugos intentionally lies and rapes it to make his followers blind and to make them follow him and do what he wants . He’s not the only one. People on that side have been recklessly lying and calling people heinous things, and threatening to end careers — for no better reason than their own power and self interest.
The end result of this are dumb bunnies like Irene Gallo who are absolutely sure they’re only saying what “everybody knows” when they accuse the most unlikely people of being “racist, sexist, homophobic” let alone “neo-nazi.”
These are lies told by their opinion makers, like Mr. Fifty Hugos, for the simple purpose of keeping primacy in AN AWARD FOR A FORM OF FICTION. For power. For vainglory. That’s it.
Let’s make that very clear: they’re willing to blacken characters and destroy careers in order to hold on to plastic rockets and the accolades of fools.
Which paradoxically is what makes the fight important and why we can’t let them win.
When I was contemplating this post, my friend Peter Grant posted and my friend Cedar echoed it.
I read Peter’s post and I realized we were both talking about the same thing. We’re talking about the truth. The truth that matters. You can’t rape the truth, no matter how holy you think your objective.
If you rape the truth you mislead sheep like Ms. Gallo and make them think they’re fighting a holy cause, instead of just keeping you in Hugo nominations. (To the extent that Ms. Gallo is innocent of slander it is because her friends and associates lied to her. Not an excuse. She’s an adult and she should have verified. But she’s not as guilty as the stone-cold-liars who deceived her.)
It is the fact that the prize is so small that makes the lies and manipulations more heinous. If they lie like this in small things that bring them no monetary reward, what do you think they’re doing to the truth in things that matter?
Go read Peter’s post. He’s even angrier than I am and with better reason. His experiences in life have been harsher than mine, because it was Africa.
One thing that’s struck me very forcibly in the whole Tor situation is how utterly blind to reality are many of those on the left/liberal/progressive/SJW side of the debate. It’s incongruous to read the comments on ‘Puppies’ posts at File 770, those left in response to Tom Doherty’s post at Tor.com, and from many of the authors and others ‘leading the charge’ on that side of the debate. They appear to be living in an echo chamber where they feed off each other, constantly repeating the same old lies like a stuck record. That’s the problem – what they’re repeating is, in many cases, simply not true, but they ignore that and carry right on saying it, as if repetition will somehow magically make it true. It won’t, of course.
Truth is determined in relation to reality. If a fact is objectively true, if it can be verified according to evidence, or tested in a laboratory, or otherwise shown to be actually (rather than merely claimed to be) the case, then it’s true. It’s no good saying that something is ‘true for me’ if it’s not actually true at all. That means you’re living a lie. Period. An excellent example is the current fuss over Rachel Dolezal’s claim that she ‘identifies as black’. I don’t care what she identifies herself as being – I want to know what she is in reality. The fact of the matter is, she isn’t black – so no matter how many wishful thoughts she may have, and no matter what deception she foists upon others (including the NAACP), the reality is that her life has been built upon and around a lie.
The charges leveled against the Puppies campaigns by the SJW’s are largely lies. They take statements made (or allegedly made) by one or more individuals (often quoted out of context to make them sound either worse, or different from, what was meant), then apply them across the board to all ‘Puppies’ of whatever description. This is simply not true. It isn’t real. It would be as if I took the views or statements or actions of a radical progressive/liberal/whatever (like, for example, Pol Pot) and accused all SJW’s of sharing them. That wouldn’t be true, so I don’t do it . . . but why do so many of them do it to me? It’s as I said last week. They focus on the narrative, not on the facts, because the facts don’t support their views.
Then think about what these people are doing to the truth, in a petty, stupid little fight. And think of what they accuse us of, like voting blindly for a “slate”, while they’re the ones treating people like sheep and leading them in an unreal and bizarre fight, of which ONLY the leaders benefit.
Mr. Fifty Hugos, you’re beneath contempt. When you call people names, it’s a mirror you’re looking in.