On Teacher’s Kids, and Hugos

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Rules are for the “LITTLE” People. Yes, there will be a post later, but it might be tomorrow. Because this is important and those of you not at Mad Genius SHOULD be aware of it. -SAH

davefreer's avatarMad Genius Club

Now, I was a teacher’s kid – a child at the same school my mother taught at. Teachers’ kids tend to meet other teachers’ kids. I’ve never heard any one of them have this experienced any differently, so I would guess it is pretty universal: besides it makes sense. Authority is assumed to bias in favor of its own (whether children, or friends, or merely those like themselves). It is a perception which needs no proof – but needs a lot constant visible evidence to counter. If you’re a sensible teacher who loves their child, you make sure there are no signs of favoritism, and in fact are harsher and less trusting with them, than other kids. If you’re the kid… no matter how much you love your mother or father the teacher, you do not ever show this affection or close bond at school. In fact, if you’re smart…

View original post 1,682 more words

92 thoughts on “On Teacher’s Kids, and Hugos”

      2. I’ll raise you one and go with a D9. The D10 is too big to legally haul on a lowboy without removing the blade.

        Like

  3. Wow. Read it at MGC, and have seen it reblogged twice – so far. Gee, folks, think this one might just have some sort of importance? Seems pretty clear that any issues of WorldCon and Hugo are self-inflicted wounds.

    Like

    1. Yup. Even if the information was released, processed, and studied with the purest of intentions, that the “researchers” broke the part about not making anything public sours me, no matter what the outcome or how the data are used.

      Like

      1. Having transgressed in so minor a matter how could they be relied upon in any greater one? They’ve proven themselves dishonest from the start and any results bear the taint of the fruit of the poisoned tree.

        Like

      2. If by heavier restraints you mean lampposts and hemp …

        “The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
        Thomas Jefferson

        “Jefferson was a slave-owner, a beneficiary of White Male Privilege, and part of the Colonial power structure; his opinions impose no strictures upon modern thinkers.”
        SJWs

        Like

        1. IE “It was wrong for Jefferson, as a White Male, to own Slaves but the Modern Enlightened Ones can enslave others”. [Sarcastic Grin]

          Like

          1. When the Modern Enlightened Ones do it it isn’t “slavery” slavery. It is wrong for people to own other people, but when those other all people are property of the State it is the responsibility of the Enilightened Ones, acting as agents of the State, to take proper care of State property.

            Like

              1. How much? But it really isn’t their money, after all as property of the state, anything they own is de facto owned by the state… right?

                Besides, the nanny will take perfectly good care of them, why should they need money?

                Like

  5. I’m glad that the SPs are pointing out the bigotry driving the whole Hugo kerfuffle, but honestly I think Vox Day is right, the Hugos are irredeemable and just need to be burned down. And replaced with some award (maybe a re-figured Jovian?) that actually represents what it claims to.

    Like

    1. It’s a tainted award from a small, tainted, and no longer relevant organization.

      While burning it down would be amusing in the short term, continuing to yank their chain will provide more entertainment in the long term.

      Like

      2. If needed, you burn it down for the same reasons that you would cremate a flag that had fallen into the hands of unpatriotic scum. So that what once was great would not have the humiliation of being smeared with dung.

        Like

        1. Only if we offer organic, vegan “hotdogs” and marshmallows. Although given some of the hand waving and shrieking, brats would be a lot more appropriate ( and a micro-aggression most likely.)

          Like

          1. Although, truth be told, I’ve never understood this fascination with organic food. I’ve always preferred my food to be ferrous, with a touch of silicate, myself…

            But then, doesn’t everyone?

            Like

  6. Based on comments by one of the WSFS members made over at MGC last year, it was pretty clear that the leadership there has a massive bias and really are not very trustworthy.
    so I’m not surprised by this.
    I’m waiting for someone to involve the feds myself. I used to be very involved in a non-profit, (which I believe WSFS is?) and I was very surprised to find out that all elections held by non-profits are regulated under federal law.
    Someone probably should look into that a little further. I’m not, because it’s just not worth my time, but folks should be aware that what is going on, is most likely criminal.

    Like

      1. Have to separate “non profit” from “tax exempt organizations” – the latter federally regulated under IRC sec 501, hence the designations like “501(c)(3)” etc.

        And the handling of an awards vote is not regulated as would be a tax exempt organization’s election of its board of directors.

        Like

      2. Being neither a criminal nor a lawyer (insert redundancy gag of choice) I am no more than familiar with some of the precepts, but this seems to bear the hallmarks of a conspiracy intended for profit of insiders, a form of insider trading. To the degree that bearing the Hugo stamp of approval enriches certain publishers, editors, authors and agents any deliberate effort to control the award would seem to fall afoul the RICO statutes.

        “RICO law should not be thought of as a way to punish the commission of an isolated criminal act. Rather, the law establishes severe consequences for those who engage in a pattern of wrongdoing as a member of a criminal enterprise.

        “Title 18, Section 1961 of the United States Code sets forth a long list of racketeering activities, the repeated commission of which can form the basis of a RICO Act claim. These underlying federal and state offenses exist independently of the act, and include the crimes of homicide, kidnapping, extortion, and witness tampering. Racketeering activities also include property crimes such as robbery and arson. A number of financial crimes are also listed, such as money laundering, counterfeiting, securities violations, as well as mail and wire fraud.”
        [SNIP]
        “The Supreme Court considered the issue, and determined that an enterprise can be any group with members who are associated in a relationship in order to achieve a common purpose, provided the relationship lasts long enough to allow them to pursue that purpose. In the terminology of RICO law, such groups are known as “association-in-fact” enterprises.”

        “…According to the Court, to qualify as a pattern, the criminal activities must be related and continuous. Relatedness will be established if the crimes have similar characteristics such as the same perpetrators, victims, and methods of commission. Continuity will be established if the crimes occurred over a substantial period of time. Some courts have interpreted this to mean at least one year.”
        https://www.hg.org/rico-law.html
        [Emphasis added]

        Certainly there exists evidence of a form of insider trading, providing useful information to selected parties rather than the general public.

        Like

        1. Slander/Libel of opponents might be an additional criminal act, or at least one done for the purpose of maintaining illegitimate control of the benefits conferred by Hugo trophies.

          I await the day in which political campaigns are held subject to RICO law.

          Like

          1. I await the day politicians are subject to truth-in-advertising or fraud charges, at least if they win and oppose all they campaigned on.

            Like

        2. “To the degree that bearing the Hugo stamp of approval enriches certain publishers, editors, authors and agents any deliberate effort to control the award would seem to fall afoul the RICO statutes.”

          Aye, there’s the rub. Ever since the Hugos have gone down the path that they are on–namely, rewarding “literary” over “science fiction and fantasy”–the Hugo has acted as a warning to those who wish to read good stories, and thus no longer enriches anyone…

          Like

          2. I saw a book recently that looked interesting to me – Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, I think it was – but stopped short of reading it after seeing that it had won a Hugo. I’ve been meaning to ask someone whose taste I trust their take on it (i.e. most any of the Huns), but I’ve no shortage of reading material as it is.

            Like

            1. Lots of Literature markers, but it’s obvious the author was having fun, and so does the reader. I don’t remember anything more about it now, though, other than I enjoyed it.

              Like

  7. Reposted to your repost: What’s wrong with pedophiliac commies as a core tradition of fandom? I think I’m going to stick with my definition of the Hugo’s as the DPR’s… Devalued Plastic Rockets, the prize awarded by a shrinking convention to a publisher dominating shrinking bookstore shelf space.

    Like

  8. Not surprised honestly. In the end, it comes down to money and not the art of writing. More than that, it comes down to what minority group you belong to, and who ever has the most, that is who should win, not caring about the nature of ones story.

    Like

  9. Teacher’s kids, cop’s kids, preacher’s kids…

    The problem with good reputations is that they are hard to construct, but very easy to destroy.

    Like

    1. At one flying job I had, the chief pilot warned that it takes ten “atta-girls” to counteract one “oh sheet.” I have yet to seen that ratio disproven, although depending on the severity of the “sheet,” ten may be the bare minimum.

      Liked by 1 person

        2. One thousand “attaboys” wiped out by one “oh sh*t”, but only ten “attagirls” wiped out? Discrimination! Sexism!! Microaggression!!! Trigger warnings!!!! Cats and dogs living together!!!!!

          Like

    2. Heh. Growing up my best buddy was the preacher’s kid. Now there’s something intrinsically nice about the guy – but he spent a lot of time PROVING he wasn’t a goodie-two-shoes, in all sorts of mischief. I once asked him why (because I had known him since we were babes in arms, the fact his father was our parish priest never occurred to me as a factor in my expectations). He just shrugged, and said he had to be, because he was the priest’s son.

      Like

      1. Of course, the “preacher’s kid” (PK) was also expected to be better than the other kids.

        If a non-PK did something, it might be seen as “just something all kids do”, but if the PK did it, it was terrible.

        Note, I was not a PK. [Smile]

        Like

  11. I was at WesterCon last July. Standlee was a panelist for “Slate Voting and the Hugos”. His pathetic bias against both puppy campaigns was obvious and lapped up.

    “They call themselves ‘The Evil League of Evil’!” Uh, so?

    “They only want stories with ‘manly men doing manly things’!” In what fraking universe was that statement ever made?

    TNH gave the game away with her “the Hugos belong to us.” post last spring. She claimed to have figured out that there was a huge puppy imprint on the noms. How? Because Brad Torgerson’s post had a change of “tone”. So he and all the other puppy conspirators must have gotten together and told each other. Also, Williamson had posted about his nom during the hush period. PROOF!

    My theory? John Scalzi called her up after the Easter weekend and whined that he didn’t get his nomination for Lock In like she PROMISED he would. So she called a few other friends in the back scratch brigade and found out that forty or fifty ballots didn’t work this time…

    My theory, anyway.

    I am SOOOO going forward with Ribbon Revenge II: The Do It Againing.

    I…I did not spend a lot of time on the name.

    Like

    1. Standlee seriously said that? “They call themselves the ‘Evil League of Evil!'” and the “Manly Men” thing? SERIOUSLY? Oh jebus I may die laughing. I thought the guy was probably a jerk based on his LiveJournal…I didn’t realize what a ridiculous, hilarity-inducing spectacle of an a$$h*le he really was! Damn, that’s embarrassing…for him. Does he think all the people laughing when he speaks are laughing *with* him rather than *at* him? What a sad, petty, bitter little man.

      Like

      1. The gullibility of Lephtists when it come to invidious stereotyping of Conservatives may not be bottomless but no one, as yet, has found its bottom. Not Stephen Glass, not those falsely claiming T.E.A. partiers used racially inflammatory language.

        Because they “know” how “we” are they will grasp onto any smear that comports with their prejudices.

        Like

      2. You HAVE to be kidding? The audience didn’t break down in helpless laughter? I despair of the human race. It’s ay times like this I am glad I am not one.

        Like

      3. He was a little calmer at the start of the panel, but apparently read the crowd to be a bit more on his side, so got a little more into it as he went.

        Never said the “only straight white men” canard so i guess we should be grateful for that.

        But he did spend an awful lot of time on the way to do a no award vote. For some reason.

        I muttered “That’s a lie.” sotto voice a whole bunch of times. Maybe I shoulda spoke louder…

        Like

    2. hey captain, I remember ribbongate from last years Hugos. if you are going to do ribbon II, would you call the police, when your ribbons are stolen again?

      Like

      2. Nah. I’m gonna try a put them out with a smaller sample. If they end up at con-ops or file thirteen or the memory hole, I’m going to have to do something I hate.

        I’ll have to be gregarious and pass them all out personally.

        Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. That is a pretty dramatic step. :) (I’m a situational introvert. I’m cool in small groups, I’m OK with large groups, but introduce me to 5-8 people at a dinner party and I freeze.)

          Like

    3. ““They only want stories with ‘manly men doing manly things’!”

      Cedar, Sarah, Amanda and Kate would like to have a word with you . . .

      Like

        1. Heh. Anyone know of a good example of a story with an effeminate man doing manly things? I think that would be amusing to read (assuming good writing of course). The closest I can come up with off the top of my head is the Scarlet Pimpernel, but a dandy or fop is not quite the same thing as effeminate. On second thought, there was that comedy action flick a few years back about an ex-Mossad hairdresser, but it didn’t look like my kind of humor. Suggestions?

          Like

          1. Depending on your definition of effiminte, you might be able to shoehorn “A Few Good Men” into that catagory.

            Like

        1. You know, one thing that has become abundantly clear throughout all of this: The puppy-kickers have never read our books. Or for that matter, read what we’ve written about wanting. They really really hate the straw books and straw puppies.

          Liked by 1 person

            2. Nyah – everybody knows the blurbs are a bunch of lies for the rubes. Just like “Hugo-winning” author, those are elements of the marketing design.

              After all, have you read the blurbs on their books?

              Like

        1. Perhaps they prefer stories of manly women doing manly things?

          Myself, I prefer stories over contemporary morality plays.

          Like

  12. I was going to claim my kids (they’re one of the three special cases, and I’m two) were exceptions to the general rule (or maybe I would have said “So far, so good–mostly”). Then last night we had to have that discussion we’ve been having a lot lately about instant obedience being required and it could sometimes save your neck. Anybody need a kitten? No, that’s totally on topic–as in put him outside now! Don’t let them get together. Too late. Them that hesitates, gets kittens.

    Like

    1. So you have two cats, a male and a female, both unfixed? Or you have just one unfixed female cat, but a tomcat got in the house? And your kids were too slow to obey your order to put the male outside, so now there are going to be kittens?

      … You know, I don’t think “Well, now there’s going to be kittens” will encourage them to obey your orders faster in the future. Not if they’re at the age you seem to imply that they are. :-)

      Like

Comments are closed.