Tor Books, Puppies, and Boycotts

LordSunhawk wrote:Because you are completely stripping the context away from her 'private personal Facebook post', which was the promotion of a Tor novel in her professional capacity as a TOR employee. In other words, it was an OFFICIAL statement in her OFFICIAL capacity. The protest about it was enough to spur the HEAD of TOR to post an official statement disavowing the statement and stating *that going forward* when employees used social media in their personal capacity they would be required to say so explicitly and not conflate personal and official IN THE SAME FUCKING POST, and not to engage in this sort of behavior while doing OFFICIAL business. Then when ANOTHER TOR editor did the exact same thing, he first had to dance 'oh, I meant this post in my private capacity', then updated again talking in the official corporate 'we', then finally deleted the entire thing in the vain hope of making it go away.

Your spin is hilarious, very typical for the puppy kickers. And wrong. Irene Gallo WAS speaking as an employee of TOR when she spewed that vile bit of bilious bile, equating men who fought and bled against REAL neo-Nazi's and racists to the KKK. And you stand with her. I bet you stand with Requires Hate and MZB and her husband as well. All SJW's in good standing and no doubt deserving of Hugo's in your mind.

And nice bit of rhetorical dancing around the fact that at no point did Gallo differentiate between SP and RP in her condemnation of them, and her blanket statement that the entire slate was badfic by badauthors unworthy of Hugo's because badthought. You are trying anything, anything at all, to justify her disgusting post. And in order to do so you've mounted the goalposts on tractors so you can move them at will.

Putting aside the argument over whether any given statement was technically made by this or that person when they were speaking as an employee or not... who gives a crap? Seriously? The most this line of argument could establish is a couple people who work at Tor don't like what Sad Puppies are doing (surprise, give that Sad Puppies are being antagonistic by design) and exercised poor messaging control when expressing their opinions.

So What?

What is there that people are supposed to get all worked up about here?



Step 1: Show Sad Puppies pissed off some people at Tor and they said something on the subject...

Step 2: ???

Step 3: PROF... errr... CONSPIRACY PROVEN!!!!!!




Is that what we're supposed to be taking away from this?

The E wrote:By reducing the slate to "What Torgersen personally approves of" and "What Vox Day personally approves of", the chances that the nominated works represent the best of SF in 2014 is greatly reduced.

That's your opinion. Torgersen would obviously disagree, and I see no reason your opinion on the issue should be considered any more inherently valid than his. I was very happy to see a particular author on the ballot who had not been nominated for a Hugo before, and well deserves the recognition.

The E wrote:Torgerson invited suggestions. Then proceeded to ignore them. For a campaign that had "The Hugos are not representative of what is actually popular in SF/F" as one of its core motivations, that's a bit strange, isn't it?

So...you're calling Torgersen a liar based on your ability to read his mind? Impressive. Torgersen did not copy/paste the suggestions he received, but you have absolutely zero basis to conclude that he ignored them.

The E wrote:Except that didn't happen, did it? People were simply copying Torgersen's and Beale's slates verbatim, resulting in what is probably the least diverse field of nominees in recent history (Not only in terms of more white male writers being nominated than previous, but also in terms of John C Wright getting 4 nominations across 2 categories).

...

Surely the right answer would be to get people to vote according to their personal tastes, not the tastes of some dude on the internet somewhere?

Yes, obviously that's the right answer, and that was Torgersen's stated and achieved goal with regard to Sad Puppies, no matter how you wish to mischaracterize it. It's true that Vox Day asked his readership to copy/paste the slate he presented for auditing purposes. It's a flat out lie to claim that Torgersen did the same.

Torgersen was quite clear that his list was of works that he personally enjoyed and recommended, and he encouraged his readership to consider the works on his list, but in any case to nominate works that they *had read* and thought were worthy of a Hugo.

Moreover, when Worldcon released the usual early numbers stating the range of nominating votes that the works in each category received, it was solidly demonstrated that the Sad Puppies voters had certainly not copied and pasted off Torgersen's list. The variance both within and between categories was far too broad to reflect the sort of lockstep voting that the anti-Puppies allege...and yet the accusation continues to show up in their talking points, as here.

Oh, and for what it's worth? Wright originally picked up six nominations until one of his works was disqualified. That left him with five...which ties him with Mira Grant/Seanan McGuire in recent years for most nominations in a single year. And yet I don't remember hearing similar complaints when her works populated the ballot as thickly as his did this year.

CSB wrote:So...you're calling Torgersen a liar based on your ability to read his mind? Impressive. Torgersen did not copy/paste the suggestions he received, but you have absolutely zero basis to conclude that he ignored them.

No, I'm not. He didn't lie about any of it, it's just that his stated goals and his methods used seemingly do not fit together.

LordSunhawk wrote:Because you are completely stripping the context away from her 'private personal Facebook post', which was the promotion of a Tor novel in her professional capacity as a TOR employee.

So if, hypothetically speaking, I was to write on social media about a project I worked on at work, it's instantly transformed into an official statement I am making on behalf of my employer? Is that the standard you want to apply?

In other words, it was an OFFICIAL statement in her OFFICIAL capacity. The protest about it was enough to spur the HEAD of TOR to post an official statement disavowing the statement and stating *that going forward* when employees used social media in their personal capacity they would be required to say so explicitly and not conflate personal and official IN THE SAME FUCKING POST, and not to engage in this sort of behavior while doing OFFICIAL business.

This is murky territory, and I am firmly of the opinion that curtailing the freedom of speech of an employee just because that employee managed to piss off Vox Day is wrong (And, let's be honest here, if it wasn't for that moron dragging up dirt and using it to prolong this idiotic culture war he so desperately needs to be real, we wouldn't be having this discussion).

Your spin is hilarious, very typical for the puppy kickers. And wrong. Irene Gallo WAS speaking as an employee of TOR when she spewed that vile bit of bilious bile, equating men who fought and bled against REAL neo-Nazi's and racists to the KKK. And you stand with her. I bet you stand with Requires Hate and MZB and her husband as well. All SJW's in good standing and no doubt deserving of Hugo's in your mind.

If anyone is still standing with Requires Hate after reading the expose about her, I have not met them. I certainly am not one of them, and have indeed argued on other venues that RH is not what I want in a Hugo winner.

Considering that Requires Hate just got a new contract with... drum roll please... TOR? With, I believe, Feder as her editor and Gallo handling the art? Funny that. But you'll pretend not to know that and do a typical 'I disapprove but...' line. And I note that you avoided the MZB issue completely, nice dodge and deflection, bravo! I guess you hate the Puppies more than paedophiles, good to know.

And you are being deliberately obtuse. The *sole purpose* of Gallo's post on Facebook was the promotion of a TOR novel, nothing else. She included a slam on the Puppies in this official announcement (note, that even her bosses at TOR considered it to be an official corporate communication) and then, in that same thread, further slammed *all* supporters of the Puppies as racist blah blah blah. All the frantic handwaving in the world won't change that. And, moreover, she claimed that *all* the works they supported, INCLUDING THOSE OF OTHER TOR WRITERS, were worthless drek.

Where the boycott escalated was when the idiots at TOR decided that it was a brilliant idea to dismiss all the anger at Gallo and Feder as being 'only from bots' not from real people, and that's when things boiled over. People were annoyed at Gallo, insulted by her non-apology, then became furious when they were dismissed as unpersons by Tor.

Okay. Let's say I understand your position now. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.

Now, are you capable of understanding my position? Are you capable of understanding why someone might look at an artificially inflated shitstorm and ask "Cui bono?"

The E wrote:Okay. Let's say I understand your position now. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.

Now, are you capable of understanding my position? Are you capable of understanding why someone might look at an artificially inflated shitstorm and ask "Cui bono?"

Either of two options:

1) You agree with Irene Gallo's statement, and think that it's obviously unjust for someone to be punished for stating the truth bluntly; or

2) You think that Irene Gallo was at least partially wrong in her assessment (excessive, overbroad, whatever), yet it would be grossly unfair to expect her to lose her job for publicly libeling her employer's business partners and customers.

It's interesting that you start off with the assumption that the people with a vehemently different take on the issue than yourself must be arguing in bad faith--"artificially inflated shitstorm"--and engaged in a cynical conspiracy to take scalps for their own ends--"Cui bono?"

Irene Gallo comprehensively insulted several of her own professional colleagues and a large number of her employer's current and (potential) future customers with a list of the most damning accusations she could come up with, within the context of modern society. I can assure you that her targets are quite honestly upset by her behavior, and know full well that in nearly any other employment situation, HR would have long since escorted her from the building.

CSB wrote:2) You think that Irene Gallo was at least partially wrong in her assessment (excessive, overbroad, whatever), yet it would be grossly unfair to expect her to lose her job for publicly libeling her employer's business partners and customers.

It's this, for the record. Because I don't think that her statements constitute libel.

It's interesting that you start off with the assumption that the people with a vehemently different take on the issue than yourself must be arguing in bad faith--"artificially inflated shitstorm"--and engaged in a cynical conspiracy to take scalps for their own ends--"Cui bono?"

I am not blaming you or LordSunhawk for being enraged.

I am, however, pretty certain that this whole shitstorm has been an orchestrated affair. Orchestrated, by his own admission, by Vox Day.
Who has an axe to grind with the american SF establishment, who has a history of being an odious troll, who has a vested interest in furthering this whole "culture war against the evil SJWs" narrative. Who, in short, is not trustworthy and more interested in promoting himself than he is in improving issues in SF.

Meanwhile, Day went to stage 2 of the Tor protest and told his followers to use physical mail to write in to Tor and clog their mail.

What's stage 3? And, more importantly given his tendencies, would even a comprehensive firing of everyone the Puppies currently hate at Tor make Beale happy?

The E wrote:...snip...

I am not blaming you or LordSunhawk for being enraged.

I am, however, pretty certain that this whole shitstorm has been an orchestrated affair. Orchestrated, by his own admission, by Vox Day.
... snip...

Except the "shitstorm" as you put it started three years ago. Yep, Day took advatage of it like any shockjock.

But otiginally it was about getting the fans involved. Which is a novel concept in a award supposedly based on fan input. Which also used to mean something.

Heck ot is jow I started reading Heinlein, Smith, Asimov, Poul, and many others. In the bookstore it meant something when the awards were listed on the cover.

You really need to block out several days to resd Correia's and other blogs from past years to understand what it is about. And the vhorf's responses.

It really is not a subject that encourages a short reading for the uninformed. It is way too complicated. Most really don't want to expend the effort and I don't blame them. Ihave tead too much of it and still not sure that I agree withany of it. Except that Day is a&@& that I won't read. And probably not want to read anythung associated with him. He has his own publishing capability.

Enjoy,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:Except the "shitstorm" as you put it started three years ago. Yep, Day took advatage of it like any shockjock.

That's not what these past few posts have been about though. That whole dialogue was about the very recent shitstorm surrounding Tor and Irene Gallo.

You really need to block out several days to resd Correia's and other blogs from past years to understand what it is about. And the vhorf's responses.

I did. And then I thought about their talking points, and found I disagreed with them. That can happen, you know.

It really is not a subject that encourages a short reading for the uninformed. It is way too complicated. Most really don't want to expend the effort and I don't blame them. Ihave tead too much of it and still not sure that I agree withany of it. Except that Day is a&@& that I won't read. And probably not want to read anythung associated with him. He has his own publishing capability.

And now he has a personal army he can use to get himself and works he's publishing furnished with a set of shiny rocket statues.

Snip phone lost The E header info. Shrug.

And now he has a personal army he can use to get himself and works he's publishing furnished with a set of shiny rocket statues.[/quote]

Not hard to fight. His army isn't even a battalion.

If it is worth it to you cough up the $40 and cast your own vote to nominate what you think is worth it. Worldcom can still disagree and no award your choice. Get your friends involved.

That is how a democracy with these rules works. If it ain't worth it to you then what are you complain about?

It WAS a shitstorm with the same words you used except the part about a particular poster the previous 2 years. Just got louder this year. Of course having 7 media outlets print a story then retractions right afterwards might also have something to do with it.

All it takes for evil to win is good men to do nothing. Of course evil and good tend to be subjective.

Worth very little,
T2M