Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The background is in fact political of the american culture wars variety though both sides like to pretend it is only the other camp that is using political criteria to promote candidates. And the intent is the shout down the other sides viewpoint. Nobody has clean hands or pure heart.
Before the catfight hit here, I for one, had never heard (or cared about the issues) of the Sad Puppies or the Social Justice Warriors. Most readers don't.
|
I feel obliged to point out a few things:
1. "Sad Puppies" and "Rabid Puppies" are self-chosen names. "SJWs" is not; it is used as a slur by the Puppies to indicate "anyone who disagrees with us." (Also used similarly by GamerGate; the organizer of the RP slate is also a vocal supporter of that cause.) Labeling one group as "SJWs" or "Social Justice Warriors" is not neutral usage; it is a declaration of allegiance with the Puppy faction. (If you engaged in a discussion about race by using racial slurs, would you expect to be perceived as neutral?)
2. That the Puppies have colluded to stack the nominations is not in question. They have been very public about it at all stages. However, their claim of "SJW shenanigans" remains unsubstantiated. In fact, Larry Correia (the original Sad Puppy, and a former auditor) is on the record as saying that he saw no evidence of foul play when he studied last year's results.
3. The Puppies have demonstrated, conclusively, that slates break the system. However, rather than say that they've made their point and demanding the system be fixed, they're already planning to break the system again next year. That goes well beyond the most charitable reading of their antics ("expose the problem so it can be patched") to expose what I can only interpret as a desire to completely destroy the award.
In short, you have fallen prey to the "evidence of one extreme impiles an equal opposing extreme" fallacy. In reality, there are only two "gangs" if you count the Sad and Rabid Puppies separately. There is no corresponding "SJW slate" campaign; the two factions in this dispute are the Puppies and those appalled by their public defiling of what has been a revered award. (I do not count the "don't care either way" group as a faction; they're bystanders.)
Of course, if you
have evidence of an "anti-Puppy slate" campaign, I would be most interested in seeing it. So far, all I've heard on that front are whispers, rumors, and thirdhand gossip. Further, I would think that a competing slate would leave
some trace in the results, just as one can compare the nominations to both Puppy slates and see where each made its mark.
I have little tolerance for conspiracy theorists or black-hat manipulators. The Puppies are, according to their own posts, both. One need not be on an organized Other Team to oppose blatant manipulation, and I would oppose it if it were coming from the Eebil Librul side. The active factions aren't conservative vs. liberal, but slate vs. anti-slate... and I'm staunchly anti-slate. Secret slate, public slate, liberal slate, conservative slate - doesn't matter to me. I want to see rules changes that would render
any such attempts at rigging the process futile and irrelevant.
Power, as they say, to the people. The individual people.