Okay, this is an odds and sodds post, but the first thing to do is to say that while I thought Captain Comic’s pamphlet juvenile, I didn’t think it was unfunny, I certainly didn’t think it was offensive (ah, yes, the famously bad word genitalia. Let me clutch my pearls.)
I can sort of understand their taking the pamphlets off the table, though, not because they were the Worst Thing EVAH but because they were a direct attack on their philosophy. Worse, they were a HUMUROUS attack on their philosophy and as we all know the devil cannot be mocked.
What I CANNNOT understand or forgive is the taking of the ribbons “Ask not for whom the puppies bay” and “Strawman Larry, that Man is a Jerk” while digs at them are WAY more subtle, are not offensive, and couldn’t even REMOTELY upset a person who is not on the other side of the controversy, even when that person was raised in a convent and never heard the word “genitalia” as clearly a lot of the SJWs did.
THIS is theft, nothing more, nothing less. Oh, no wait, it’s also more. It’s censorship of despised view points. Worse than that, apparently Sasquan thanked this woman, Dori, for “policing” the freebies table in a public tweet. I want to know who did it, and I want that person reprimanded by the con. There is nothing offensive about those ribbons — most of Liberton con had at least one — and you have no right to confiscate them and not allow them distributed.
This is Captain Comic’s comment on it in the comments:
I don’t tweet or twit or twot or what the hell ever, so I’ve not been able to thank any of the counter protesters on the chain, notably one Jim Rizzi (@RizziWorld). If your reading this, Jim et al, thanks for backing up if not me, at least the first amendment.
And to whomever used an official Sasquan handle/account to thank her, excuse me, I mean thank xir (fight cis normative pronounds now!) I say this:
You work with/for the con. You people have the reg info. There can’t be that many people with a “Captain Comic” badge name, and darn fewer with a first name of David. You want me, call me out with the Cat Voice From The Ceiling system (it makes more sense if you’re attending). Put something up on the meet and greet board and I’ll see about dropping by for a visit.
As I commented at Amanda’s blog, how the hell did this ever become THIS?
I AM EMANUEL GOLDSTEIN!
Evil League of Evil Faceless Minion #6969
(And how did all the “childish/juvenile/immature” detectives miss THAT one?)
As for Mary-Three-Names claiming that the people who wear those completely innocuous ribbons self-identify — yeah, as what, not afraid of your shunning and calumny, Mary? And Mary, darling, remember, you also just self-identified. Me, I’d like to identify as not bowing down to the SJWs, right now, because, you know, congenital stiffness of the back. I get it from my science fiction daddy.
And since yesterday one of the few people I respect and try to listen to (I don’t in general listen very well. Not something to be proud of and something I try to change, but it’s not my default mode) Dr. Pournelle asked me why I am not writing, and why I’m involving myself in fannish politics.
I am writing — actually more than I have been in years, until yesterday when allergy to an antibiotic made it hard to see, let alone write, and I wouldn’t have written that post if I hadn’t been mad enough to do it despite illness — however, this is important because it’s no longer fannish politics. If nothing else, this kerfuffle has proven it.
I’ll quote something overheard in a discussion from my friend Michael Z. Williamson:
The prestigious Hugo Awards, which honor science fiction and fantasy writing, will be held Saturday. Lately, they have been given to more and more women and writers of color as the world of sci-fi opens up — and that’s prompted a backlash from a group of mostly white male writers who call themselves the “Sad Puppies.”My question is, why does NPR suddenly care about the Hugo Awards?Pretty much every denial of a leftist media conspiracy are left in tatters for any thinking person, by all these major media handling a very niche subject with the same dishonest party line.Why would the WSJ EVER care about the Hugo?Why would the Guardian?What’s next? Pravda and Beijing’s organ, whatever it’s called?
Hi Michael,First of all thank you for actually contacting me. Larry has been telling people to contact me for … a year? And no one else has. As someone who once – long ago, in my native Portugal – trained as a journalist I applaud your intention of looking beyond hearsay.If what I say below is not clear, please contact me to clarify. I am suffering a massive attack of auto immune issues and am on meds that make me fuzzy-headed.The short version of my comments is:
Sad Puppies which is a loosely connected (we’re not organized) group of fans (some of us are writers, but fans first) suspected that a small clique (whether motivated by power or politics, we don’t care) held sway over the Hugos. This was in part because so few people voted in the award. So we set out to increase the voter pool and we called attention to supporting/voting memberships and a group of people we thought were deserving of the award. The reaction from the clique was one of fury and name calling. (For details look here https://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/08/12/the-goat-kicks-back/.) At this point, I’m not even going to watch the awards. Whoever wins, we already proved our point. Watch next year for Sad Puppies 4, the Embigenning where we make the voting pool so large even OUR suggestions hold no sway.More detailed comments in case you need or wish for context:I probably won’t be following the Hugo ceremony because I’m not that interested in how it turns out. I bought a membership and voted but what we set out to do has been done whether the puppies win or Noah Award does.We set out to prove that the Hugos, which are supposed to be a fandom award had become so reduced by low voting numbers that it was being controlled by a clique which more often than not followed a progressive agenda.That has been more than proven by how said clique reacted to our telling our blog followers (in my case ONE post) about supporting/voting memberships and giving them a rough list (which didn’t fill all slots) of things we found interesting.If the other side had simply said that they didn’t like our selections, we’d have gone “okay.” Taste is taste, right? Instead they called us racist, homophobic, misogynist. Hit pieces came out in several publications saying we wanted to take the awards back to some imaginary dark ages (science fiction has always been fairly inclusive, see post here: http://adventuresfantastic.com/the-women-other-women-dont-see/) This despite the fact that I am Portuguese, born and raised (Sarah Marques de Almeida Hoyt is my married name), that Larry is part Portuguese and that those writers we suggested are of all colors, genders and definitions. (Because we don’t care about that. We care about the writing.) An editor on the other side compared us to child molesters. An employee of a publishing house called us extremists. I made a little collection of the rage here: https://accordingtohoyt.com/2015/08/12/the-goat-kicks-back/ It more than proves our point that they did all this because we encouraged the nomination of unexceptionable best sellers like Anderson and Butcher for what is supposed to be a FAN award.That is the reaction of a small clique that has engaged in log rolling for years to reward its followers and those they approved of, whether for political reasons or others. Our point is proven.Next year Sad Puppies 4 headed by my good friend Kate Paulk will try to make the number of voters so many that no suggestion list – not even ours – can hold sway and so that the award will be representative of what the public at large is likely to enjoy. That way “Hugo Winner” will become a “buy signal” for most people again. Kate intends to call it Sad Puppies 4, the Embiggenning.