ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 02, 2016

There Will Be Volume XI

Jerry Pournelle has an important announcement.

There Will be War Volume XI

 Now open for submissions at twbw@castaliahouse.com. Publication will be in late November or early December of this year. Reprint anthology, but original works are eligible; three original fiction stories in Volume X were nominated for Hugos; winners will be announced at MidAmericon II in August. Although unpublished works will be considered, there is no additional payment beyond payment for reprint rights, and first publication rights remain with the author (until, of course, they expire at publication of this volume).

Payment is $200 on acceptance. This is an advance against royalties. Royalties are a pro rata share of 50% of all royalties due from the publisher (the other 50% is to the editor). We buy non-exclusive anthology rights.  Publisher is Castalia House, which will make advances and royalty payments directly to the contributors. Again, payment is the same for previously published and previously unpublished works. Story selection is by me (the editor).  Editor’s contribution will include a volume introduction and introductions to each contribution, and may include more as I judge necessary.

Submissions can be fiction or non-fiction of under 20,000 words relevant to the future of warfare.  Previous volumes have included stories of ground combat, interplanetary and interstellar naval engagements, “space opera”, terrorism, a major essay in asymmetric warfare by a professor of military history, and articles from military journals. Most works to be included have been previously published. Submissions accepted until October 2016, or until announcement that the volume is filled.

Two classic stories by well-known award-winning authors have already been accepted, others are expected. I emphasize that payment of an advance against royalties is on acceptance.

Labels: ,

Was Charles Darwin a science fraud?

A buster of supermyths claims that Darwin was, in fact, a plagiarist:
Sutton has himself embarked on another journey to the depths, this one far more treacherous than the ones he’s made before. The stakes were low when he was hunting something trivial, the supermyth of Popeye’s spinach; now Sutton has been digging in more sacred ground: the legacy of the great scientific hero and champion of the skeptics, Charles Darwin. In 2014, after spending a year working 18-hour days, seven days a week, Sutton published his most extensive work to date, a 600-page broadside on a cherished story of discovery. He called it “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret.”

Sutton’s allegations are explosive. He claims to have found irrefutable proof that neither Darwin nor Alfred Russel Wallace deserves the credit for the theory of natural selection, but rather that they stole the idea — consciously or not — from a wealthy Scotsman and forest-management expert named Patrick Matthew. “I think both Darwin and Wallace were at the very least sloppy,” he told me. Elsewhere he’s been somewhat less diplomatic: “In my opinion Charles Darwin committed the greatest known science fraud in history by plagiarizing Matthew’s” hypothesis, he told the Telegraph. “Let’s face the painful facts,” Sutton also wrote. “Darwin was a liar. Plain and simple.”

Some context: The Patrick Matthew story isn’t new. Matthew produced a volume in the early 1830s, “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture,” that indeed contained an outline of the famous theory in a slim appendix. In a contemporary review, the noted naturalist John Loudon seemed ill-prepared to accept the forward-thinking theory. He called it a “puzzling” account of the “origin of species and varieties” that may or may not be original. In 1860, several months after publication of “On the Origin of Species,” Matthew would surface to complain that Darwin — now quite famous for what was described as a discovery born of “20 years’ investigation and reflection” — had stolen his ideas.

Darwin, in reply, conceded that “Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection.” But then he added, “I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew’s views.”

That statement, suggesting that Matthew’s theory was ignored — and hinting that its importance may not even have been quite understood by Matthew himself — has gone unchallenged, Sutton says. It has, in fact, become a supermyth, cited to explain that even big ideas amount to nothing when they aren’t framed by proper genius.

Sutton thinks that story has it wrong, that natural selection wasn’t an idea in need of a “great man” to propagate it. After all his months of research, Sutton says he found clear evidence that Matthew’s work did not go unread. No fewer than seven naturalists cited the book, including three in what Sutton calls Darwin’s “inner circle.” He also claims to have discovered particular turns of phrase — “Matthewisms” — that recur suspiciously in Darwin’s writing.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Sutton is correct. Although non-writers don't have much confidence in it, to the expert, or even the experienced amateur, literary style is very nearly as distinguishable as a fingerprint. This is particularly true in cases where the two works are supposed to be entirely unrelated.

Labels:

Gammas never lose

But sometimes they win in ways no one else can see. This probably belongs on Alpha Game, but since everyone here is familiar with the entire discussion that led up to it, I'm posting it here. In his response to my banning him, we learn that the recently-banned Camestros Felapton is not only an SJW, he is a Secret King Who Cannot Ever Lose Because Even When It Looks Like He's Losing, He Is Really Winning, You See.
Cool! Banned by Vox! I had to give Vox a little lesson on Aristole and logic the other day and now he seems to have got a tad upset with me.
Wow, how cool is that! See, Felapton wanted to be banned from the place that he had sought out on his own and where he was commenting repeatedly without invitation. That was his plan all along! The joke is on Vox! This is always the immediate reaction of the Gamma who has just been beaten in public; he immediately tries to spin the negative into a positive. And, of course, this spin requires an amount of historical revision; I clearly don't understand the great Greasean philologist Aristole as well as he does. SJWs being SJWs, we also have all three Laws of SJW on display.
  1. SJWs Always Lie: there are four obvious lies in the first three sentences. To say nothing of a classic Gamma tell.
  2. SJWs Always Double Down: instead of simply admitting that he was wrong and had failed to correctly understand Aristotle's distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, he continues to posture as some sort of expert on philosophy and logic. But does he have a Bachelor's Degree in the Philosophy of Science from the University of Chicago?
  3. SJWs Always Project. I'm not even remotely upset with Felapton. Quite to the contrary, I am amused by his utterly predictable Gamma behavior. As one observer commented yesterday, he's going to be looking for his chance to take a revenge shot for years.
Oopsie! The rationalization is because of the point I made on File770 regarding the Castalia House published work on Gene Wolfe:
This is close enough to the truth. Although "the lies I told" would have been a more accurate way for him to phrase it.
Vox claims this somehow ‘proves’ Larry Correia’s point about politics and the Hugos or something. Which is odd because the focus of my point was not Vox Day’s admittedly unpleasant and confused politics but his active campaign against the Hugo Awards and other science-fiction writers.
It does prove Larry's case. The focus of Felapton's point is irrelevant in this regard. Felapton admitted that he would be voting on grounds other than the literary merit of the works concerned. That concedes Larry's primary point. Larry argued, correctly, that the claims the Hugo Awards were awarded solely on the basis of merit were false, and moreover, that it was nothing but a popularity contest among a small group of people who leaned heavily to the political left. Although Felapton's point is irrelevant, it also happens to be wrong since my active campaign is entirely the result of politics in science fiction. Their dislike of my politics is the only reason Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and John Scalzi started this conflict by publicly attacking me back in 2005.
Sigh. That isn’t the genetic fallacy.The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of IRRELEVANCE that confuses the SOURCE of a claim with its VERACITY. There isn’t a factual claim at stake here – I’m not saying a factual claim made by an author is false by virtue of his publisher (e.g. if somebody was to say that a claim about Gene Wolfe in the book was false purely on the basis that the book was a Castalia House book THAT would be the genetic fallacy).

My claim is that I can’t reward obnoxious behavior by Castalia House. Nothing to do with the genetic fallacy. Vox concedes that I raise one valid point, which is that “there is no way of separating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works.” That is the ethical basis of my position and Vox concedes that it is valid and not fallacious.
More posing. Felapton is trying to play fast and loose with both his claims and the applicability of the genetic fallacy here. As the tagline to his blog states, "even when we're being honest we come across as being disingenuous" and he is not being honest here. We know that he believes the Puppy nominees to be low-quality; he has openly said as much in the past. Now he is pretending that he doesn't necessarily believe that Castalia-published works are of insufficient quality to win awards, only that he "can't reward obnoxious behavior by Castalia House."

In other words, he is being disingenuous, and attempting to pretend that he is not claiming that a published work is not worthy of an award on the basis of its origins, it is simply that his pressing need to avoid rewarding what he believes to be obnoxious behavior just happens to justify precisely the same course of action. What a fortuitous coincidence!

However, he made a mistake. He did not merely say that he was not refusing to support Castalia-published works on the basis of their origins. He could have said, in response to my statement, "the genetic fallacy doesn't apply and here is why", but instead, he said "that isn’t the genetic fallacy" and then proceeded to adminster another of his little lessons. He tried to kill two birds with one stone and thus exposed his true intentions. Let's break it down:
  1. My claim is that Felapton has concluded Castalia-published works lack merit due to their origins.
  2. Felapton asserts that that is not his conclusion. Dubious, but possible.
  3. Felapton asserts that is not the genetic fallacy. Wrong.
He blundered because it wasn't enough for him to simply state that I failed to understand his motivation for no-awarding Castalia publications, he also tried to pretend that I don't understand the genetic fallacy because he is still smarting over my demonstration of his inability to understand rhetoric. Interesting word, smarting, in light of the typical gamma response to being intellectually bested.

As for Felapton's veracity and how seriously one should take his claims, well, his closing statement alone should suffice to judge that.
What is more interesting is Vox losing his cool. That is a major departure from his play book and poor tactics. He is actually rattled? Surely not by me, so I assume it must be by Philip Sandifer’s campaign.
As it is written, SJWs always lie. Felapton and others continue on that theme in the comments. Those in italics are his.
  • I suspect VD is completely panic stricken by Chuck Tingle
  • he tried the liberul-head-explody thing and then the liberul-heads didn’t explody
  • For a master of rhetoric, he has the debate strategy skills of a goldfish
  • He really can’t stand having people who know formal logic and rhetoric better than he does around
  • It’s also amusing to see him flailing around in his flop-sweat as you call him on being a serial bullshitter
The idea that I am "completely panic stricken by Chuck Tingle" is fascinating, considering that more than one journalist has contacted me this week to ask if I am Chuck Tingle. That "let's make their heads explode" thing is a Sad tactic, not a Rabid one; I don't care how SJWs feel about Chuck Tingle or anything else. Delenda est. As for my "debate strategy skills", well, there is this. And this.

UPDATE: Lunacy from one of the banned ones, Golden Flowers aka Micael Gustavsson. Talk about the Third Law!
Classic pathological narcissist – rubbing VD's nose in the fact that he’s spouting crap threatens his identity as the Bestest Argumentarian EVAH, so he has to double down and come up with more bullshit on why his admirers should ignore his previous bullshit. I suspect VD is completely panic stricken by Chuck Tingle, and is flailing around trying to restore his feeling of being in control. He can’t; having opened Pandora’s box he is stuck with Tingle until the sun goes nova.. When VD is “amused” you know he is really upset.

Labels: ,

Big Larry's European adventure

It sounds like Larry Correia had a blast on his European tour:
Of all the languages, German was by far the easiest to pick up words and phrases for me. Despite being related to Portuguese and Spanish, French sounds totally eluded me. And Czech is HARD (they have like 46 ways to make conjunctions). But German shares a lot of word roots with English, and the actual structure is pretty straight forward. Plus it is fun to just walk around and make up vaguely German sounding names for things, like a pigeon is Das Poopinbirden.

The next day we drove across all of Germany to the Czech Republic, and I got to experience the autobahn, which my whole life has been this sort of mythical place that has no speed limits, and is filled with drivers that understand slow traffic stays right, and where they never camp in the left lane, and in fact, if you’re blocking the left lane, they’ll come right up on your bumper at 100 miles an hour, honking, and flashing their lights. It was a place devoid of mercy, unforgiving of weakness. So we set out.

Apparently there are two kinds of tourist drivers on the autobahn. Those who are weak, fearful, whose crying pillows smell of lilacs and shame, who stay in the truck lane, or who wander out into the left occasionally, timidly, to be honked at and chased aside by awesome Teutonic Super Drivers…

And the other kind is the American who manages to average 180km an hour across all of Germany in a Volvo diesel station wagon.

It was AMAZING. I felt like a race car driver across an entire country. You know why German cars don’t have cup holders? Because if you stop to drink while driving, YOU WILL DIE. And you should. You need to be on. I’d get a gap, jump out to the left, floor it (because fuel economy is for hippies I’m on the mother f’ing autobahn!),  and nobody pulls out in front of me in a minivan to enforce their personal speed limit, people ahead of me going slower (like 100mph) immediately get out of the way, and when some bad ass comes up behind me in a super car, I get out of his way, and then they blast past me like I’m standing still.

It was beautiful.

You wouldn’t think a diesel Volvo would be comfy at 112 miles an hour, but it really is. Yes. I friggin’ love the autobahn. If I lived here I would buy a giant BMW or Audi and drive very fast, all the time. Why can’t we have something like this here? I would like to institute autobahn style rules on I-15 in Utah. Sure, a few thousand people would probably die in the first weekend, but after that it would be awesome.
Can confirm. What some might find interesting is that Italy has its own sort of temporary autobahn, which is certain stretches of the autostrada on Sunday mornings from 9-11 AM. Spacebunny and I were driving home from Verona one morning, doing about 100 MPH or so, when I saw a red car coming up VERY FAST from behind.

It turned out to be a Ferrari 456. A few moments later, a tricked-out blue Porsche with a vague resemblance to a 911 flew past as well. My Call of Duty mate, who used to race Formula 2, has friends who drive for Ferrari, and drives an Aston Martin, later told me that there are certain sections of the autostrada that are intentionally left camera-free so that the men with the supercars can let them rip at times when the traffic is light.

European pro tip: if you see silver in the distance behind you, move over without delay. No one in Europe drives faster, or is more likely to ride your bumper, than drivers of silver Mercedes station wagons. My theory is that if you need a station wagon, but insist on spending the money for a high-performance engine, you're probably a roadway lunatic. I see plenty of nice, big-engined sports cars and sedans cruising along the autostrada at reasonable speeds, but every single Mercedes station wagon driver is flying along at least 20 MPH faster than the flow of traffic, no matter how fast it is, with his left blinker permanently on.

And for some reason that still eludes me, they are always silver.

Larry is right about German being easier for English speakers too. As for French, I honestly found it easier to pick up Japanese. The Italians may speak rapidly and use the same word to describe three completely different concepts, (hence the need for all the gestures) but at least they enunciate.

Labels:

Sunday, May 01, 2016

"Muslims are not welcome in Germany"

AfD is stepping in to shoulder the responsibility of defending the German people that the two mainstream parties have so badly shirked:
One week after Austria was shocked by the news that its right-wing, anti-immigrant Freedom Party, had swept the competition, gathering over 35% of the vote and leaving the other five candidates far behind, Europe's anti-immigrant juggernaut just added to its momentum when neighboring Germany's populist AfD party adopted an anti-Islam policy on Sunday in a manifesto that also demands curbs to immigration according to AFP. The biggest surprise however, is that the three year-old party is now also Germany's third strongest party.

Formed only three years ago on what was originally a eurosceptic platform, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has gained strength as the loudest protest voice against Chancellor Angela Merkel's welcome to refugees that brought over one million asylum seekers last year. However, with the migrant influx sharply down in recent months, the AfD has shifted focus to the signature issue of the xenophobic Pegida street movement, whose full name is Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident.

"Islam is not part of Germany" ran a headline in the AfD policy paper agreed in a vote by some 2,400 members at the party congress in the western city of Stuttgart.

The paper demanded bans on minarets on mosques, the call to prayer, full-face veils for women and female headscarves in schools.
Within three years, every Western nation will have a strong political party that endorses some sort of restrictions, if not outright bans, on Islam. The current battle in the British Labour Party over Muslim anti-semitism in the party may mark an important turning point here, as it appears that Britain's Jews have begun to realize that "let's you and him fight" is not a functional strategy and are no longer able to fool themselves into thinking that a de-Christianized West is a beneficial option.

Reconquista 2.0 has begun. One hopes it will be more peaceful and less protracted than its predecessor.

Labels: ,

All ur base no longer belongs 2 u

Jerry Pournelle reflects upon Peggy Noonan's dawning horror that the Republican base is no longer what passes for conservative:
“Those conservative writers and thinkers who have for nine months warned the base that Mr. Trump is not a conservative should consider the idea that a large portion of the Republican base no longer sees itself as conservative, at least as that term has been defined the past 15 years by Washington writers and thinkers.”

The Second Gulf War saw us invading Iraq in response to the al Qaeda attack on New York, although there was zero evidence that Saddam had anything to do with it. Then came Afghanistan. In each case we sent just enough to do the job, but not overwhelming force to achieve victory – likely impossible in Afghanistan unless we were prepared for decades of occupation, and given the Soviet experience even that was likely to be arduous. All of this seemed to be destroying monsters, not protecting the liberty of the American people.

Some of us said so at the time. The response from National Review, once (when under Bill Buckley) the voice of the American Conservative Movement, was to feature the Egregious Frum reading out of the Conservative Movement all those who did not enthusiastically support the invasion of Iraq. Since that time I have not been “a conservative”. Paleo-conservative, perhaps; one who believes Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk have much to teach us; yes. But officially not a conservative according to National Review. Since I am not one of them by their own account, having been read out of their movement, I have no obligation to defend their policies – not that I ever defended all of them; after all, they did read me out of their ranks because I opposed the long war in Mesopotamia, did not think we could build democracy in a “nation” composed of Kurds, Shia majority, and Sunni, and ruled by Baathists, and thought we had no business expending blood and treasure when we had no describable national interests.

Trump’s people think the same way: patriotism trumps ideology. That is, of course, a very conservative principle, or was when I was teaching political science; apparently it is not so now. Miss Noonan sees it; I doubt the neoconservatives who have become to leaders of the conservative Movement will understand, or care; but perhaps the American voters will. Reagan was no ideologue, and he won. True: Trump is no Reagan; but you know, Mr. Reagan was not always Ronald the Great either. But he was always a patriot.
At 81, Dr. Pournelle is still far sharper than the average bear. He's pointing out something very important that has escaped nearly every political commentator, including me, which is that for decades, beginning with the John Birch Society, conservatives have been reading people out of the conservative movement.

And now, they have read so many people out of conservatism that the movement is no longer, in any practical sense of the term, a popular movement anymore. I'm an alt right figurehead, but I'm no conservative. Jerry is an old school Cold Warrior, but he's no conservative. From Ann Coulter to John Derbyshire to Mark Steyn to Paul Craig Roberts, the best intellects of the right are all ex-conservatives.

And now the Republican base, has realized that they, too, have been effectively read out. Just as the Democratic Party left Ronald Reagan, conservatism has left the Republican grass roots behind.

Labels:

Of enthymemes and false erudition

First, Philalethes observes that my use of rhetoric was, indeed, effective:
VD's original use of "Aztec" in the WND article was effective rhetoric, the Slate author's snarky reference to it was at least attempted rhetoric, and then VD's present response was also rhetoric, by the clever tactic of twisting the poignard out of her hand and stabbing her back with it. For me, it worked quite well, whether or not it was based on an enthymeme (about which I knew nothing until tonight).

Which is the point: either rhetoric draws blood, or it does not. Maybe for Mr. Camestros it did not, but that's all he can legitimately say about it – though his effort to destroy the rhetoric by dialectic would appear to show that he is at least aware that this device did and would draw blood in the minds of most readers. So in sum I must agree that all Mr. Camestros has accomplished here is to make a fool of himself with his attempt to speak magisterially from the high seat on a subject about which he obviously knows less than does the person at whom he is aiming his barb.
Second, I will explain how the now-banned Camestros Felapton either badly misrepresented, or simply failed to understand, Aristotle's fundamental distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, as well as the purpose of the latter. He's rather like a tactician who doesn't grasp strategy, as he seems to have a basic knowledge of the technical aspects without understanding their basic purpose or how they can be utilized:
I know what an enthymeme is, thank you, which is why I re-expressed your enthymeme as a formal syllogism with premises. I do so to highlight what your un-expressed major premise was. Put another way, what was the underlying assumption that you were appealing to in your rhetorical device.

That assumption appears to be this:
"People who are part-X are not people who are paranoid about X" Which is best described using the technical term 'bollocks'.

If your response is an 'effective' one then it is because your audience is accepting that assumption as being correct.

An enthymeme has UNSTATED premises (or conclusion). The premises and/or conclusion are suggested or implied (in the non-logical sense of 'implied'). You seem to be thinking that 'unstated' means 'logically do not exist'. That is incorrect. With an enthymeme the reader is expected to 'fill in the gaps'. This is why I asked you what your premises were so as to re-express your enthymeme as a formal syllogism.
This initially made me suspect that Felapton was simply being dishonest. The reason he wanted me to translate the rhetoric into dialectic, and complete the formal syllogism, was so he could criticize it from a logical perspective and thereby discredit it in an attempt to persuade others to believe Slate's claim that I am paranoid about Aztecs. (Which was, in itself, merely another step towards his real purpose.) He was pushing me to state the unstated because an enthymeme does not only contain unstated premises, but those premises are often incorrect from the purely logical perspective. This is why Aristotle gave this type of syllogism a different name and devoted considerable effort to defining and explaining how it worked, because otherwise it would be nothing more than an incomplete syllogism.

Consider one example provided by Wikipedia:

"Candide is a typical French novel, therefore it is vulgar."

In this case, the missing term of the syllogism is "French novels are vulgar" and might be an assumption held by an audience that would make sense of the enthymematic argument.


Now, obviously not all French novels are vulgar, so therefore, Felapton would argue that the syllogism fails logically and is incorrect. That is why he was trying to get me to state the unstated premise of my Aztec enthymeme, so that he could attack it dialectically. But as I pointed out, the syllogism was an enthymematic argument, not a logical argument, and therefore his attempt to logically disqualify it was totally irrelevant. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the book he has not read, there is zero information content in rhetoric; it is not designed to inform and persuade, but emotionally convict and persuade, because, as Aristotle correctly informs us, many people cannot be persuaded by information.

This is the point that Felapton fails to grasp, and his subsequent comment tends to indicate that it is not merely dishonesty on his part, but also a genuine failure to understand the distinction between rhetoric and dialectic that underlies his incorrect statements on the subject.
A great place for you to start to get a better understanding of the role of enthymeme in general and its relationship with logic would be Aristotle's rhetoric itself. I think you perhaps have misunderstood the distinction as somehow rhetoric (in Aristotle's sense) as being utterly divorced from logic. If so then the word you are looking for is not 'rhetoric' but 'bullshit'. Substituting the word 'bullshit' for 'rhetoric' in your response, renders it a better description for what you seem to be trying to say.

However, Aristotle did not advance the notion of rhetoric as BS or sophistry but as an art of persuasion but persuasion towards TRUTH by rational means.

"It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.

The orator’s demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of persuasion. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of syllogisms of all kinds, without distinction, is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic as a whole or of one of its branches. It follows plainly, therefore, that he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is produced will also be best skilled in the enthymeme, when he has further learnt what its subject-matter is and in what respects it differs from the syllogism of strict logic."
What Felapton clearly fails to understand here is that the fact a highly skilled dialectician will also be skilled in the use of rhetoric only means that the best and most effective rhetoric is constructed in a similar manner and is in line with the truth. It absolutely does not mean that the use of enthymematic arguments that are not in line with the truth are not rhetoric, for the obvious reason that there would be no difference between a syllogism presented for dialectical purposes and an enthymeme presented for rhetorical purposes. But the two related concepts are intrinsically different and we know why. Consider Aristotle's additional observations:
  • Persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question. 
  • The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning.
  • It is evident, therefore, that the propositions forming the basis of enthymemes, though some of them may be "necessary," will most of them be only usually true.
  • We must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially. Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally well to the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in.
In other words, Felapton has confused Aristotle's admonition to use rhetoric in the service of the truth with Aristotle's definitions of what rhetoric is as well as with his instructions on how to use rhetoric effectively. In fact, Aristotle makes it clear that both dialectic and rhetoric can be used impartially on either side of an argument, although it is much easier to identify the deceptive use of dialectic due to its reliance on complete syllogisms and strict logic than it is the deceptive use of rhetoric due to its incomplete structure and its reliance on apparent truths that are accepted by the audience.

What Felapton calls "bollocks" and "bullshit" is nothing more than what Aristotle calls "apparent truth". But, as we have seen, rhetoric can rely upon these apparent truths just as readily as upon actual truths. And in this particular application, my rhetoric, even structurally reliant as it is upon apparent truth rather than actual truth, is more persuasive, and therefore more effective, than Slate's rhetoric, in part for the obvious reason that it is absolutely true.

Labels: ,

SJWs strike back

In their own hapless and inimitably gamma way. First, Pedophil Sandifer makes a hash of the time-tested "I know you are but what am I" tactic and engages in the usual SJW projection in libeling the Hugo-nominated GamerGate artist Kukuruyo:
Vox Day Put A Child Pornographer On The Hugo Ballot 

For obvious reasons, I will not be providing links here, however I am happy to provide them privately to anyone with a legitimate interest in the information, including law enforcement.

It was brought to my attention today that "kukuruyo," one of the artists that Vox Day put on the Rabid Puppies slate in Best Fan Artist and that made it onto the Hugo Ballot recently posted to his blog a commissioned drawing of comic book character Ms. Marvel in which her genitalia is clearly visible and provocatively displayed. Ms. Marvel - whose comic won last year's Hugo for Best Graphic Story - is a sixteen-year-old girl in the comics. Under US law, this would seem to legally be child pornography.

Although the drawing post-dates Day's placement of the artist on his slate, the hypocrisy of Vox Day endorsing the work of a child pornographer is particularly glaring given that he continues to throw childish insults like this around:

    #SJW logic: Pedophil Sandifer complains that #RabidPuppies are "bullying fucks" while declaring that they are outnumbered "3,800 to 200".
    — Supreme Dark Lord (@voxday) April 30, 2016

and has been vocal in accusing sci-fi fandom of harboring pedophiles, including slating two works with arguments to this effect in Best Related Work. 
He then proceeded to double down and do it again. A few relevant points that collectively demonstrate the utter absurdity of Pedophil's libel:
  1. Kukuruyo has stated that he didn't know the fictitious age of the Marvel cartoon character, Ms Marvel, and drew her as a 20-year-old.
  2. I am reliably informed that Ms Marvel was 16 when she was introduced in 2013. That makes her at least 18 now, possibly 19. 
  3. The age of consent in Spain is 16. Kukuruyo is Spanish, lives in Spain, and US law is not relevant to his activities.
  4. The drawing cannot be child pornography regardless of what age the fictitious character is supposed to be. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that drawings and computer representations are not child pornography.
  5. Phil Sandifer has admitted that he was aware of the Supreme Court ruling when he made the accusation.
  6. The Ms Marvel drawing was drawn and posted well after I recommended Kukuruyo, who draws GamerGate Life, for the Hugo Award.
  7. SJWs always project. This is more than a little alarming in this particular case.
The most reprehensible aspect of Sandifer's attack on GamerGate's favorite artist is the way he is observably attempting to cast doubt on the undeniable fact that the science fiction fandom community has harbored pedophiles in the recent past, and the very reasonable suspicion that it is continuing to do so now.
In tangentially related news, while Camestros Felapton has gotten himself banned elsewhere in the Puppyverse, he'd always behaved himself here and never done worse than embarrass himself by demonstrating his inability to understand the core difference between rhetoric and dialectic, and between enthymemes and logical syllogisms. However, he's been blatantly lying about both me and Castalia House at File 770, so he's now permanently banned from commenting here as well.
I’ve been a fan of Gene Wolfe for a long time. I love the idea of the work you are doing and from what I have seen the scale of work and scholarship you have put into is impressive. However, I can’t vote for your work when your publisher is promoting it by attempting to exploit issues like child-sexual abuse. There isn’t some neat way of separating ‘Castalia House’ from the actions and strategies of Theodore Beale/Vox Day and there is a qualitative difference between authors who have been unwillingly nominated by the Rabid slate and authors who have willingly chosen to work with Castalia House. I understand that for you it was a matter of getting your work published and promoted and I understand why any author would want that for their work – but in the case of Castalia “promoted” necessarily includes stunts like slating the Hugo awards and attempts to trash whole categories, and it includes slurs and defamation of *other authors* people who, like you, have poured sweat & scholarship and long days/nights into their work. However, I also get that Vox Day perceives criticism as betrayal and that he has a tendency to ‘punish’ what he perceives as betrayal. So I am certainly not asking you denounce Day or withdraw from the awards or any other kind of symbolic action, but I am saying I can’t vote for your work and I can’t see it as a legitimate nomination because there is no way of seperating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works.
 To set the record straight:
  1. Castalia is not promoting our various works by exploiting issues like child sexual abuse. Being a father as well as the acquaintance of several adults who were abused as children, I take the matter very seriously and I am committed to identifying and exposing every abuser in the science fiction community, no matter how celebrated or protected they are. I do not view the Hugo Awards as a promotion, promoting Castalia's books is not a primary, secondary, or even tertiary objective of the Rabid Puppies campaigns, and the only book we will be promoting on the subject is the one we are publishing by Moira Greyland about her experience growing up in the science fiction community.
  2. I have not defamed any other authors, as the lawyers for John Scalzi, Samuel Delaney, and N.K. Jemisin, among others, will have informed them if they ever bothered to look into the matter. To the contrary, in the opinion of no less than three UK barristers, two of whom are experts on the subject and have won libel cases I have been legitimately and repeatedly libeled by a number of individuals in the media and the science fiction community.
  3. I do not perceive criticism as betrayal, as pretty much every reader of this blog can testify, having criticized me at one time or another. I have no problem with criticism, what I object to is blatant falsehoods. Third Law. SJWs always project.
Felapton does raise one valid point, which is that "there is no way of seperating what is published by Castalia from how Castalia promotes itself and its published works."

However, in doing so, he only underlines Larry Correia's original point about the Hugo Awards, which is that the awards are not given for merit, but rather are awarded on the basis of political approval. If the voters were solely, or even primarily, concerned with literary merit, as the SJWs in science fiction claim, this inability to separate the work from the publisher would not matter in the least.

But, as Felapton admits, since he can't separate the work from the publisher, the merit of the work does not matter and he will not vote for any Castalia-published work on the basis of this genetic fallacy. That is certainly his prerogative, of course, but in explaining his reasoning, he has also proved the Sad Puppies original case about the Hugo Awards, which is that they are awards given out on the basis of political approval, not the pretense of literary merit the science fiction community presently affects.

Third, and more or less unrelated, but not meriting a separate post, Greg Hullender estimates the number of Rabid Puppies:
I’ve run the numbers using the power-law estimator, and from that I calculate that about 270 rabid puppies voted the slate this year, and that they kept fairly good slate discipline. I only get two anomalies:

“Hyperspace Demons,” by Jonathan Moeller should have been a finalist for Best Novelette. If we assume that he quietly declined the nomination, the numbers are a perfect fit.

Similarly, Bryan Thomas Schmidt should have been a finalist for Best Editor, Long Form. If we assume he too declined the nomination, those numbers are also a perfect fit.
That sounds about 60 percent too low to me, although it's higher than Felapton's estimate of 200, but we'll find out in due course. My guess, and it is nothing more than a logical extrapolation from last year's vote, would be around 650, as I thought we'd need at least 750 to run the table this year. In any event, I'll leave Kukuruyo with the last word, because the salt must flow.


Labels: ,

Saturday, April 30, 2016

The architect of anti-SJW

A livestream featuring an interview with the chief architect of The Complete List of SJW.

Labels: ,

Chuck Tingle contemplates Hugo withdrawl

 After NK Jemisin demanded Chuck Tingle withdraw his nomination for the Hugo Award for "Space Raptor Butt Invasion", Dr. Tingle gave the matter some serious consideration.
Chuck Tingle ‏@ChuckTingle
cant sleep. lots of thoughts i will be addressing tommorow morning. i will be very forward on where i stand and make important annoucement

Chuck Tingle ‏@ChuckTingle
i am very sorry sometimes things just have to come to an end. this has to be done and i will be as upfront as i can

Chuck Tingle ‏@ChuckTinglestill not sure if im ready for all of this to end still sorting though feelings about this annoucement. more very soon

Chuck Tingle ‏@ChuckTingle
in five minutes official announcement of withdrawl and difficult ending

Chuck Tingle ‏@ChuckTingle
PLEASE UNDERSTAND i have decided to WITHDRAW my support of taylor swifts and unfollow her. I now follow KATYS PERRY

LOVE IS REAL! Chuck Tingle's nomination is not a joke. Well, all right, it is. But it's arguably less of a joke than N.K. Jemisin's affirmative-action reward for hating the "beardy old middle-class middle-American guys" who created the field.

Labels:

Calling out the ADL

On Twitter:
ADL ‏@ADL_National
@realDonaldTrump: Reconsider your use of the phrase “America First” as a slogan.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
So exactly WHAT should Americans put first, if not America?

ADL ‏@ADL_National
For many Americans, the term "America First" will always be tainted by its anti-Semitic use in months before Pearl Harbor

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Even more Americans look forward to seeing the repatriation of those who refuse to put America first.
If the members of the ADL are not willing to put America, and Americans, first, then obviously no American should support them or listen to anything that they have to say.

It is no more anti-semitic for Americans to put America, and Americans, first, as a matter of foreign policy, than it is anti-American for Israelis to put Israel first, or anti-Canadian for Germans to put Germany first.

No one gives a damn about the Holocaust these days. It's ancient history. The British newspapers notwithstanding, virtually no one outside the media gives a damn about anti-semitism anymore. There are now many more important problems around the globe that concern considerably more than a paltry few million people living more or less at peace in the United States.

Not even the Israeli government cares about someone painting a swastika on a wall somewhere in North America. They, too, have far more pressing concerns to address.

Labels:

An actual conversation

Other Guy: I don't really know anything about this Rabid Puppies thing. What's up with that?

Vox Day: Oh, it's just related to this science fiction award. Last year we took a bunch of nominations, so they made a big deal about it and vowed it would never happen again. Then this year, we took a few more.

OG: So that's why they're pissed.

VD: Yeah, pretty much. But also because we got things like "Space Raptor Butt Invasion" nominated.

OG: What?

VD: There's this guy, Chuck Tingle, he's a complete lunatic and he writes these crazy gay dinosaur erotica stories.

OG: Doesn't he have a book about boyfriend who is a plane or something too?

VD: There's one called "My Gay Billionaire Plane Boyfriend", something like that, anyway.

OG: Yeah, I read it! It was pretty good.

VD: I'm a little alarmed to hear you've actually read that.

OG: Yeah, well, you're the one who knows the guy's name.

VD: Touche'.

Labels: ,

A summary of 2015

While we're on the subject of music, one of my old NoBoys bandmates runs though the 2015 pop roundup with his a capella group, Face Vocal Band. One of these days, I'll post a link to the first song he ever wrote, which is a bizarre one about a fish in love with a little girl who visits the sea shore.

Labels:

There is no room for false modesty

Not where genius is concerned:
Keyboardist Morris Hayes arrived at Paisley Park as a production assistant. Under Prince’s tutelage, he eventually became not just a member of the New Power Generation but the band’s most senior member.
“I was just one of those church cats that played music by ear, so at first it was very difficult for me to keep up. We wouldn’t just learn one song, we’d learn a string of songs, and when we’d come back the next day I’d forget some. I remember he pulled me to the side and said, ‘Are you a genius, Morris?’ I said no. ‘O.K., then write it down. I don’t write it down ‘cause I’m a genius. I’ve got a million of ‘em, and I can remember. But unless you’re a genius, write it down.’ He gave you that extreme focus, where you knew you had to really come with it.”
It's fascinating that unlike so many gifted individuals, Prince was able to coach less talented and help them improve. I wonder if that might have had something to do with his early relationship with Andre Cymone, his friend from junior high and member of both Grand Central and The Revolution, of whom it was said that he could play everything Prince could play, but only if Prince showed him how to do it first. Speaking of which, this article about his performance at the 2004 ceremony honoring George Harrison tends to support that anecdote as well as put both both his performance and his demeanor in context.
I had no idea that Prince was going to be there. Steve Winwood said, “Hey, Prince is over there.” And I said, “I guess he’s playing with us?”

So I said to Winwood, “I’m going to go over and say hello to him.” I wandered across the stage and I went up to him and I said, “Hi, Prince, it’s nice to meet you — Steve Ferrone.” And he said, “Oh, I know who you are!” Maybe because I’d played on Chaka Khan’s “I Feel for You,” which is a song that he wrote. I went back over and I sat down behind the drum kit, and Winwood was like: “What’s he like? What’d he say?”

Then I was sitting there, and I heard somebody playing a guitar riff from a song that I wrote with Average White Band. And I looked over and Prince was looking right at me and playing that song. And I thought, “Yeah, you actually do know who I am!”
I was actually more surprised that Prince had ever heard anything played by a band called Average White Band than at the fact he would remember a riff from it and be able to play it from memory. But then, they were pretty funky and even I would recognize "Pick up the Pieces", so I suppose that makes sense.

My favorite part of the Harrison tribute article is how the clueless lead guitarist kept playing the Clapton solos in rehearsal and Prince didn't make a fuss. He just strummed along, waited for someone else tell the guy to back off, then waited until they were on stage to show him how it's done. Prince being Prince, I strongly suspect it was his quiet annoyance at the guy's earlier failure to know his place that drove the unusual nature of his performance that night, particularly because he told the producer to let the guy go ahead and play the middle solo.

“Look, let this guy do what he does, and I’ll just step in at the end. For the end solo, forget the middle solo.”

That wasn't just genius being expressed on that stage, it was also the contempt of a genius for mere talent and skill. Hey, even geniuses sometimes require motivation.

Labels: ,

Book of the Week

War to the Knife is the first volume in the Laredo Trilogy, and it is a fascinating tale of a war that is already lost before the book even begins. The author, Peter Grant, is a fascinating man of much wider experience than most, having been a member of the South African Defense Forces with combat experience in various African nations prior to becoming a pastor.

In War to the Knife, he draws upon aspects of both his past professions; unlike many authors of military science fiction, he truly knows whereof he speaks, both in terms of the technical issues as well as the emotional costs that affect victor and defeated alike.

The trilogy begins with the defeated military remnants of the planet Laredo coming to terms with the fact that their resistance movement is on the verge of being wiped out by the occupying forces of the much wealthier, and more technologically advanced Bactrians. They decide that rather than surrendering to the merciless occupiers, they will attempt to go out in one last defiant bang that will give cover to their attempt to break through the planetary blockade and get the evidence about the Bactrian occupation out to the rest of the Thousand Worlds, who have been kept largely ignorant and misinformed about the true state of affairs.

Grant is a good writer, and the unusual situation he presents, in which the good guys are beaten from the very start, is given additional depth by Grant's South African perspective. And yet, War to the Knife is not even remotely depressing, it is rather optimistic and inspiring, being a testimony to the indomitable human spirit and its ability to defy even the certainty of death as well as an intriguing war novel full of intrigue and action.

For those who find the name familiar, Peter Grant is, in fact, the leader of the Tor Books boycott. He blogs as Bayou Renaissance Man, a not unreasonable description given his wide range of life experience, and is not a Rabid Puppy, being too fundamentally decent a man to run with our slavering pack of virulent slaughterhounds. But one might not unreasonably describe him as being sympathetic to Puppydom, as well as fully cognizant of the true nature of the SJW enemy.

Labels:

Friday, April 29, 2016

Slate is furious about the "virulent" Rabid Puppies

Oh No, the Puppies Are Back for the 2016 Hugo Awards—and As Angry As Ever
The puppies have returned. How could that sentence portend anything foul or wicked? And yet it does—science-fiction writer and publisher Vox Day’s followers are the least cute puppies that ever puppied. You may remember them from 2015, when they hijacked the nominations for that year’s Hugo Awards, the closest thing the sci-fi and fantasy community has to the Oscars. Convinced that the genre had eschewed swashbuckling space opera in favor of politically correct, scoldy garbage, these “activists” proposed a slate of “corrective” titles and whipped up enough support among a conservative niche of Hugo voters to get them on the ballot (pushing more “literary” and more “progressive” nominees off).

Campaigns for individual books or authors at the Hugos are nothing new. Yet the puppies’ ideologically driven movement, which drew on the tactics and talking points of Gamergaters, struck a lot of people as unprecedented. When the pups positioned their nominees as a rebuke to the women, people of color, and LBGTQ folks seeking a place in the science-fiction/fantasy world, that coalition struck back. Voters opted to give “no award” in the five categories wholly overtaken by puppy nominees.

Unlike men, not all puppies are created equal. The especially virulent Rabid Puppies, led by unsavory bigot Vox Day, who is extremely paranoid about Aztecs, have made it their mission to boot SJWs (“social justice warriors”) out of science fiction and fantasy....

So now it is 2016, and the saga continues. This time, in an effort to distance themselves from last year’s bad press, the Sad Puppies have published a list of “recommendations” rather than flogging their own ballot. But the Rabid Puppies are madder than ever. Their campaign has resulted in 64 out of the 81 titles they put forward being shortlisted. One of these books is called “Space Raptor Butt Invasion,” by erotica scribe Chuck Tingle, author of such science fiction pearls as “Taken by the Gay Unicorn Biker” and, most recently, “Slammed in the Butt by My Hugo Award Nomination.” (Audible narration is available for all three. For the more politically-minded, Tingle also offers “Feeling the Bern in My Butt.”) Writes Day on his blog: “Let’s face it, there are just three words to describe the only event that might happen in 2016 that I can imagine would be more spectacularly awesome than ‘Space Raptor Butt Invasion’ winning a Hugo Award this year, and those three words are ‘President-elect Donald Trump.’”

As Michael Schaub observes in the Los Angeles Times, the Puppies’ self-mythology here as Hugo provocateurs doesn’t totally hold up. “Tingle is a popular figure among a wide range of readers,” he notes, “not just Puppy-affiliated ones.” A fair number of science fiction and fantasy folks seem delighted, not offended, by the Butt bard’s success.
Awesome. Let's see them prove it by voting "Space Raptor Butt Invasion" Best Story. But I suspect this is just hapless SJWs attempting to get on top of the Narrative with their conventional "the joke is really on you" tactic. Key word: "seem". If they were genuinely delighted, NK Jemisin wouldn't be making a complete ass of herself by trying to get Chuck Tingle to withdraw his nomination.

From Tingle's reaction, she'd have better luck convincing me to withdraw. It cracks me up that more articles about the 2016 Hugos point out that Jemisin is an ignorant half-savage than mention her own nomination for Best Novel. I'd almost feel bad for her, if she wasn't such a horrendously unpleasant affirmative-action monster. But SJWs will sacrifice anyone to maintain the Narrative, even their own pets.

It's more than a little amusing that Slate claims I am paranoid about Aztecs, when I am part-Aztec myself. But you can always count on an SJW to stick with the Narrative, no matter how observably stupid it is.

It's also interesting that referring to an idiot black woman as "an ignorant half-savage" three years ago is presently deemed more newsworthy than writing the best-selling political philosophy work of 2015, or than publishing four different #1 bestsellers in the Politics, Atheism, Philosophy, and Economic Theory categories in nine months.

No wonder the media is dying. Being converged, they're much more interested in playing speech police than in simply doing their one job.

Labels: , ,

The cost of convergence

Target is learning that pursuing social justice objectives is not conducive to business:
Target’s corporate stock has plummeted significantly this week, after a petition to boycott the store crossed 1 million signatures.

The petition and subsequent boycotts are a result of Target’s corporate campaign to open up bathrooms and changing rooms in their stores based on internal gender identity rather than biological anatomy.  The new policy has sparked concern that predators will use the store’s policy to target others, specifically women, by claiming that they feel like a woman on the inside.

Just this week, a biological man was arrested after allegedly secretly filming a woman trying on bathing suits in a Target dressing room in Missouri.

Recent polls have shown that Americans’ feelings towards open-bathroom policies have hardened significantly in the month of April, with support for the open-bathrooms concept falling by more than 20 percentage points.

Amid the turmoil surrounding the new policy and the immediate abuse of it in Missouri, the company’s stock fell from $84.10 per share on April 19 to roughly $79.36 as of Friday morning. That loss of $4.74 per share, if constant, would represent a corporate loss of over $2.5 billion.
As a general rule, people support SJW nonsense in theory considerably more than in any form of practice that will actually affect their own lives. Once there is a cost to virtue-signaling, the average individual will back off. The SJW, on the other hand, will double-down, convinced that the sacrifice proves his superiority.

Labels: ,

NFL Draft 2016

The Vikings select Laquon Treadwell, WR:
COMPARES TO: Dez Bryant, Dallas Cowboys - Treadwell shows a Bryant-like skillset with his size and athleticism combination to be a mismatch against cornerbacks on the outside.

IN OUR VIEW: Treadwell has exceptional ballskills and catching radius with strong hands to pluck away from his body or scoop off his shoelaces - if the throw is anywhere within a few feet of his body, he'll attack it. He isn't a sudden athlete, but plays with athletic twitch and power to be a threat after the catch.

Immediately, Treadwell should fit in as a possession type of receiver alongside Stefon Diggs. With improved route-running, though, Treadwell could turn into a downfield threat, even without top-notch speed.

With Teddy Bridgewater, the Vikings offense isn't built around the deep ball. Treadwell should be effective in the middle of the field and, perhaps most importantly, in the red zone.
The analysts seem to like the pick, anyhow. We do need another possession receiver; burners are wasted given the limitations of Bridgewater's arm. I'm a little suprised at Goff going number one, but if you have the chance to take a top QB prospect, you simply have to do so in today's league.

And word of warning, if you feel the need to comment about how you don't like/approve of NFL football on an NFL post, I will spam the comment. I'm done tolerating off-topic narcissists who apparently believe anyone cares about their opinion.

Labels:

SJWs ruin Watership Down

This sort of cultural and creative degradation is why I will never show even a modicum of mercy to SJWs. This is why there is no place for them in any civilized society. They are pure hraka. They are pollution. They infest every organization they are permitted to enter and they infect everything they touch.
It was the film that traumatised a generation of children, with its much-loved rabbit characters slain on screen in graphic and memorable scenes. But the story of Watership Down is to be remade for a new era, as programme-makers promise to tone down its most brutal images.

The BBC has teamed up with Netflix for one of the most expensive mini-series ever made for the small screen, and the first animated four-part drama of its kind.The show’s executive producer told the Telegraph the 2017 version will not just tone down the levels of on-screen violence to make it more appropriate for children, but give a boost to its female characters.

Female rabbits including Clover, played by Gemma Arterton, Strawberry, played by Olivia Colman, and Hyzenthlay, played by Anne-Marie Duff, will get a dose of doe power, as it were, to allow them to display their own heroics alongside their male co-stars.
This is why we need our own institutions. This is why we need to keep every single SJW out. They destroy everything in the interests of convergence. That is their sole objective and their primary activity.

This is also why I will never sell the movie rights to my books. I won't risk putting them in SJW hands. In time, we will build our own studios. Castalia is just the start.

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Interview with a Hugo nominee

In which Chuck Tingle, author of the Hugo-nominated "Space Raptor Butt Invasion", is interviewed about his work being honored.
How did you find out you were nominated for a Hugo?

Got an email from some hot shot big timer said “hey Chuck we’ve got an award for you you want it?” I said “yes.” They said “Well okay Chuck here you go.” So thats how it happened it was a good day. Son even took me out for a big spaghetti dinner and I didn’t even spill, got two plates and a big glass of chocolate milk that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

Were you surprised?

Well not really, because I know that love is real and when you write that love is real the world makes proof. This is the way that science works and is the true billings reality. So I always knew this layer of Tingleverse would prove love is real. I just didn’t know how and then when it happened, I remembered that that is why. Can’t wait to win big time award and put it in the window so Ted Cobbler sees it and feels like a big dumb idiot. He’s gonna look so dumb.

Do you know about the Sad Puppies, a group of people who try to disrupt voting for the Hugo Awards every year?

Don’t know about any puppies but it’s BAD NEWS BEARS if you want to disrupt awards. That is a scoundrel tactic and probably part of Ted Cobbler’s devilman plan. Ted Cobbler is notorious devil and has been seen using dark magic to control puppies around the neighborhood. I do not support the devilman agenda but i think that Space Raptor Butt Invasion proves that LOVE IS REAL and no scoundrels can stop that. Especially not some dumb dogs.

Do you have any comments about the speculation that you might be involved this year?

Well speculation is a good word. I can comment on that because it means knowing something is going to happen like with a spell to see the future. So thats an important spell if you want to battle devilmen like Ted cobbler or Truckman. If I had specilation spell when I battled Truckman I probably wouldn’t have had to go to the hospital with a tummy ache.
Love is real. The man is a philosopher. I think this settles the question of whether diversity is good for science fiction or not once and for all.

UPDATE: You will NOT want to miss Dr. Tingle's Reddit AMA, which features questions from Phil Sandifer and Mary Pupinette.

Labels: ,

What in the actual....

Cruz/Carly 2016: What's the point, exactly?
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, in a last-ditch bid to slow front-runner Donald Trump's momentum, named former business executive Carly Fiorina on Wednesday as his vice presidential running mate should he win the nomination.

After crushing losses to Trump in five nominating contests in the Northeast on Tuesday, Cruz praised Fiorina, a former presidential rival, as a principled fighter for conservative values who would be a valuable ally on the campaign trail.

"Carly is a vice presidential nominee who I think is superbly skilled, superbly gifted at helping unite this party," the U.S. senator from Texas told a rally in Indianapolis, the capital of Indiana.

The Midwestern state is the next battleground for selecting the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates for the Nov. 8 presidential election and is shaping up to be Cruz’s best - and perhaps last - chance to block Trump’s march to the nomination.

Cruz acknowledged it was unusual to choose a running mate so early in the race. Traditionally, the winners of the Republican and Democratic nominating races announce their running mates in the period between clinching the nomination and summer's national conventions.
I didn't take seriously the claims that Ted Cruz might be autistic until now. Seriously, on what planet is anyone going to support HP-killer Fiorina, particularly in California? I have no idea what he's trying to accomplish with this except perhaps to submarine his campaign without actually shutting it down.

They certainly make a fascinating pair from a visual perspective. Both their faces look about 15 percent melted.

As I said previously, it's over. Like it or not, Donald Trump is the Republican Party nominee.

Labels: ,

Gearing up for Vol. XI

I am very pleased to observe that Jerry Pournelle has pre-announced a new volume in his legendary There Will Be War series:
Shortly we will announce that There Will Be War, Volume XI will be published in November and is now open for submissions. It’s not the formal announcement because I don’t have the web addresses for formal submission. I don’t open attachments to emails to me (obviously with some exceptions which I’m not going to tell you) because I only read plaintext in Outlook, so sending me stories to Chaos Manor isn’t going to work; I’m sure I’ll have the web addresses very shortly.

Publisher is Castalia House. There will be an omnibus hardbound edition (with Vol. XII) and eBook editions. We buy non-exclusive anthology rights only: that means we buy previously published works, and if you send an original work – a lot of people do – understand that if it is accepted you still have first serial rights until after November, after which they no longer exist for anyone. Payment on acceptance is an advance against royalties: royalties vary in this strange age, so it’s hard to say exactly, but they are competitive, and contributors receive a pro-rata share of half what I receive.

My contribution is a volume introduction, and individual story introductions. I have been known to make editorial suggestions, particularly to original contributions. I have also been known to make other contributions, fiction and non-fiction, as I find necessary.

The series has done well, even the nearly thirty-year-old volumes. Three stories in Volume X were nominated for Hugo Awards.
We'll get on the email addresses for submissions and whatnot this weekend. In the meantime, this means we're going to need slush readers for it, so if you've got the time and you wish to volunteer to be the first line of defense, please email me with VOL XI in the title.  Last year's readers did an excellent job, so the bar is high. Every reader should expect to read between 20 and 30 short stories in six months.

Nota Bene: If you're thinking of submitting once the floodgates open, that's great, but DO NOT SEND ANYTHING THAT IS NOT MILITARY SCIENCE FICTION. I cannot stress this enough. I couldn't believe how many stories we were sent that were obviously and totally unsuitable for the anthology series. Don't waste your time. Don't waste our time. And keep in mind that Jerry is no respecter of persons. I'm the assistant editor, one of my stories, submitted anonymously, passed the slush readers, and Jerry didn't hesitate to reject it anyhow. He rejected big names. He rejected very big names. He rejected unknown names. He has nothing left to prove and he has high standards, so keep that in mind before you send in anything less than your best.

And yes, we're still doing Riding the Red Horse Vol. 2. Things have just been a little chaotic, that's all. Tom and I need to sit down and figure out how many stories we've got already, and how many more we need.

A few mostly unrelated items to address while I'm at it:
  1. Can someone email me the .mobi of The Return of the Great Depression? Update: Got it, thank you.
  2. We have some exciting new authors to announce at Castalia House very soon. Three, to be precise.
  3. Is anyone interested in a three- or six-month marketing internship? As you've probably noticed, I'm pretty good at that sort of thing, but my bandwidth is increasingly limited and I don't do one-tenth the marketing that I should do. That's about all the time that would be necessary to learn everything involved. My thought is to have a revolving marketing internship, in order to maximize the number of Ilk who are up to speed on these things.
  4. Four words: Brainstorm. Steve Keen. Soon.

Labels:

"The big winners were the Rabid Puppies"

I always find it amusing how the media is always quick to point out that NK Jemisin is black, but they never seem to mention the fact that I am an American Indian. Perhaps I need to publicly exhibit more scalps. They also never get around to mentioning why I was criticizing the ignorant, half-savage Jemisin, which is because she is a) a low-IQ cretin, b) a liar, and, c) had repeatedly attacked me sans provocation or even knowledge of who she was.
Rabid Puppies leader Vox Day, a self-described libertarian, has criticized best-selling science fiction writer N.K. Jemisin, who is black, as  an "ignorant half-savage," writing, "Unlike the white males she excoriates, there is no evidence to be found anywhere on the planet that a society of NK Jemisins is capable of building an advanced civilization, or even successfully maintaining one without significant external support from those white males."

George R.R. Martin has criticized both the puppies' agenda and their aesthetic. “When the Hugo ballot came out last year, it was not just a right-wing ballot, it was a bad ballot,” he told the Guardian prior to Tuesday's finalist announcement.

The Rabid Puppies, the more extreme of the two groups, this year created a slate of potential nominees that they urged Hugo voters to nominate. Out of 81 recommendations on that slate, 64 ended up shortlisted.

Day, who calls himself "Supreme Dark Lord, Evil Legion of Evil," wasted no time in gloating. A news release sent by Day reads in part: "'I'm not even remotely surprised to learn that the Rabid Puppies did so well,' said Vox Day, as he mopped his brow with the flayed skin of an SJW after an arduous night of celebrating his fourth and fifth nominations."
That being said, full props to Mr. Schaub, who did his research, provided a grammatically correct quote about Jemisin instead of a cherry-picked sentence fragment, and actually quoted the Bloggerblaster.

He's not on our side, obviously, and yet it's a much better article than most. The only thing he really got wrong is the idea that I expected Chuck Tingle's nomination to outrage my critics. I don't give a quantum of a damn what my critics thought about it. Some things are worth doing simply because they are amusing.

I should also point out that I don't call myself "Supreme Dark Lord". That is merely how I am acknowledged by the Evil Legion of Evil, and, of course, the Vile Faceless Minions.

Meanwhile, George RR Martin completely fails to realize that he is already playing my game as he contemplates the 2016 Hugo Awards:
The big winners were the Rabid Puppies, whose choices completely dominated the list. The Rabids had nominees in every category, I believe, and in a few categories they had ALL the nominees.... The Rabids used a new tactic this year. They nominated legitimate, quality works in addition to the dross. Works by writers like Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, Neal Stephenson, Alastair Reynolds (Reynolds went public well before the nominations asking NOT to be slated, but they slated him anyway), Andy Weir, and several others. Some of these writers are apolitical (like Weir), while others are known to oppose everything that VD stands for (Gaiman, Stephenson, King). One has to think they were deliberately targeted.

In some of the online comments I've seen, these writers are being called "shields." I've even read some people calling for them to withdraw, simply because they were on VD's list.

Withdrawing is the LAST thing they should do.

I urge them all to stand their ground. They wrote good books, stories, graphic novels, they did NOT take part in any slate. In some cases they were largely unaware of all this. In other cases they explicitly denounced the slates ahead of time (Reynolds, again). Punishing them... demanding they turn down this honor... simply because VD listed them is insane.

Marko Kloos and Annie Bellet did the right thing by withdrawing last year. Their was an ethical and courageous act; I applauded them then and I applaud them now. But this is a different year and a different situation. Given the well-known political views of some of these writers, it seems plain to me that VD and the Rabids picked them deliberately, in hopes they would withdraw, or would be voted under No Award. They would probably have put Scalzi (VD's best bro) on the ballot too, but he outsmarted them and withdrew before they could.

I am rather hoping that several of them win. Based on quality alone, some deserve to. Sure, VD will claim that as a victory, but as last year proves, he claims everything as a victory. We'll know the truth. The only real victory for him would be having any of these fine writers pull out. Let's not play his game.
It's always amusing to see people like Rape Rape, who has no idea whatsoever  about my motivations, my strategies, or my objectives, trying to declare what my victory conditions are, and how it is impossible for me to reach them.

I desperately want to win Hugos. I don't care about the Hugos. I want to destroy the Hugos. It pains me to have to point out that they obviously can't all be correct.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Embracing America's unique heritage

You may not believe Donald Trump. But unlike all the other candidates, he is saying precisely the right things on immigration, on foreign policy, on war, on free trade, and on the existence of the American national interest.
I will seek a foreign policy that all Americans, whatever their party, can support, and which our friends and allies will respect and welcome.

The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies.

To achieve these goals, Americans must have confidence in their country and its leadership again.

Many Americans must wonder why our politicians seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than their own.

Americans must know that we are putting the American people first again. On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy – the jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority.

No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must do the same.

We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.

The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.

NAFTA, as an example, has been a total disaster for the U.S. and has emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs. Never again. Only the reverse will happen. We will keep our jobs and bring in new ones. Their will be consequences for companies that leave the U.S. only to exploit it later.

Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries.

I will view the world through the clear lens of American interests.

I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion. We will not apologize for becoming successful again, but will instead embrace the unique heritage that makes us who we are.
I would like to get a copy of On the Question of Free Trade into his hands. I suspect he might find it very useful in the near term. In any event, read the whole thing. It's a great foreign policy speech.

"We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism."

How can you not support the man at this point?

Labels:

The greatest Prince story ever



Fallon's story is entirely consistent with my own encounters with Prince as well as everything I ever heard about him. I have absolutely no doubt that it's true.

"Ask your boy...."

Why they're terrified

It's hard for those outside the science fiction publishing world to understand why so many of the people inside it are a such a collection of mentally unstable freakshows. Part of it is the genre; many of these people are simply not fit to function in the real world. You have only to look at a picture from any science fiction convention to understand this; you will not see a group of more heavily medicated people outside of a hospital or a hard-core rave.

But part of it is the human reaction to stress. And the publishing world has become increasingly stressful over the last 20 years, because it is in pretty severe contraction. The dumbing down of the West thanks to the diversity they love so much combined with the growth of video games and other visual entertainment options means there are fewer readers than before. The decline of the midlist, the advent of Amazon, and the explosion of independent publishing means that far fewer people can make a living in the traditional publishing market.

Hugh Howey and Author Earnings have been doing a great job tracking the decline of traditional publishing. And in their most recent report, they show that the Big Five are rapidly approaching one-half the size of the independent publishing market.


The most important graph for authors shows the rapidly diverging rate of ebook author income by publishing path. The Big 5 publishers are now providing less than a quarter of the dollars earned by creatives for their ebook sales. Indies are taking close to half. As detailed in previous reports, higher prices and other missteps are a likely contributor to this accelerating trend, but the reality may be that major publishers simply are finding it difficult to compete with indie authors on diversity, price, quality, and frequency of publication, as this divergence has been increasing for the last two years — well before the Big Five’s return to no-discount agency pricing. But as we can see, the transfer of market share in author earnings from Big Five to indies did steepen significantly after the Big Five’s 2015 reinstatement of agency ebook pricing.

That chart is spectacular. That purple line marks a cataclysmic decline. At this rate, traditionally published authors would realize ZERO income from ebooks by January 2019. Now, that's not going to happen, I don't think, unless traditional publishers either a) all go out of business, b) stop selling ebooks, or c) give all their ebooks away for free.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that Kindle Unlimited is going to kill the mainstream publishers. They can't compete with it, and since there is a finite and shrinking supply of readers, every Kindle Unlimited sale is a strike against them.

But it's worse than that. I just got a royalty statement from one of my traditional publishers. Not only is it a very good reminder of why working with Castalia House is a MUCH better deal than working with a traditional publishing house - I'd have made nearly 3X more on a Castalia deal than I did on this one - but it demonstrates that their business model simply cannot compete with ours.

Here is the simple fact. In eight years, the non-fiction book I published with them, has sold exactly two-thirds as many copies as SJWAL has sold in eight months. And ironically, the older book, which has sold thousands fewer copies, is the one that anyone would have expected to sell more. So, even though it's not precisely apples-to-apples, the point is that an ebook-focused micropublisher can already provably sell as many books as a traditional independent publisher.

In other words, they are bringing literally nothing to the table for me any longer. The Big Five theoretically still have advantages, but what is the use of having a formidable retail distribution infrastructure when there are no bookstores to carry your product? What is the use of being able to sell into Barnes & Noble when the retailer has cut down the size of the genre section to one-tenth of what it used to be?

Sure, there will be a few blockbusters, but for literally everyone else, the traditional model offers them nothing. That is why the traditional publishers, and the traditionally published, are panicking. That's why they are scratching and clawing for every award and every distinction that might help keep their heads above water.

That is why they are drowning. They call us a "tiny" publishing house, and in infrastructure and overhead terms, they are absolutely right. But we are growing nearly 100 percent year-on-year, we are growing at their expense.

And more importantly, we know that's not because of us, that's because of you. We understand, as they do not, that we can't force anything on you. We can't, and won't, try to tell you that space romance is science fiction, that left-wing diversity lectures are entertaining, and we don't believe you owe us anything.

For the first time in decades, they are being forced to compete for their readers with genuinely different competitors, and it should come as small surprise that they neither enjoy the experience nor are they any good at it.

Labels:

Interview with a dark lord

Louise Mensch of Heat Street interviewed me about the Hugos, Donald Trump, the SJW List, and other matters:
Interview: The Rabid Puppies And Vox Day Bite the Hugo Awards

Tell me about the Hugo Awards. Are the Sad Puppies still sad?

The Sad Puppies are, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant. They have been replaced by the Rabid Puppies, mostly thanks to the egregiously obnoxious behavior of the SJWs in science fiction at the 2015 Hugo Awards ceremony. That converted most of the Sad Puppies to Rabid Puppies, which is why the Rabid Puppies accounted for 62 64 shortlist nominations of the 80 we recommended this year. The SF-SJWs said they were sending a message last year, and the message we heard was “bring more Puppies”. So we did.

You were nominated for Best Editor and SJWs Always Lie was nominated for Best Related Work. Congratulations!

Thank you so much. But the two nominations I’m most pleased about are Jerry Pournelle’s long-overdue Best Editor nomination for his There Will Be War series, and, of course, Chuck Tingle’s “Space Raptor Butt Invasion”. We’re taking diversity in science fiction to a whole new level there.
Read the whole thing at Heat Street.

Labels: , ,

Making the Hugos great again


 A roundup of reactions to the Rabid Puppies rampaging through the 2016 Hugo Awards. Jerry Pournelle's nomination alone makes the whole effort worthwhile:
I seem to have been nominated for a Hugo. “Best Editor, Short Form”. The only work mentioned for the year 2015 is There Will Be War, Volume X” released in November. It is of course a continuation of the There Will Be War series which appeared in the 1980’s and early 90’s, of which the first four volumes were recreated with a new preface during 2015; the rest are scheduled to come out in the next couple of years. I’ve edited a lot of anthologies, starting with 2020 Vision in 1973 (I think it will come out in reprint with new a introduction and afterword’s by the surviving authors next year. I did a series of anthologies with Jim Baen that was pretty popular, and one-off anthologies like Black Holes and The Survival of Freedom, amounting to more than twenty over the years, but this is the first time anyone has ever nominated me for an editing Hugo – and actually the first time I ever thought of it myself.

When I first started in this racket, Best Editor Hugo usually meant one for the current editor of Analog or Galaxy. That spread around over the years, but it meant Editor in the sense of someone employed with the title of Editor, not a working writer who put together anthologies, sometimes for a lark.

I used to get Hugo nominations all the time in my early days, but I never won. My Black Holes story came close, but I lost to Niven’s “Hole Man”. Ursula LeGuin beat me for novella. There were others. Our collaborations routinely got nominated, but again usually came second, so at one point I was irked enough to say “Money will get you through times of no Hugo’s much better than Hugo’s will get you through times of no money,” and put whatever promotion efforts I had time for into afternoon and late night talk radio shows and stuff like that. Which worked for sales, but not for Hugo awards. I’m unlikely to get this one – I’m a good editor but that’s hardly my primary occupation – but I admit I’d like to. I was already going to Kansas City this August, so I’ll be there, but I doubt there’s much need to write a thank you speech.
One of the reasons I never paid any attention to the Hugos in the past was due to their tendency to overlook excellence such as the There Will Be War series, one of the best and most influential science fiction anthologies series ever created. I'm delighted we were able to pay collective homage to the SF great; having worked closely with him over the past year, I can testify that he is still a much better editor than most of the award-winning editors of the past 30 years.

David Barnett's story in The Guardian was almost balanced and mostly stuck to the facts, which is rather remarkable considering that he is a Tor author. Sure, there are a few errors, such as the fact that SJWs Always Lie is a political philosophy bestseller, not "an essay", and "parody of erotic dinosaur fiction" is redundant, but he also, almost uniquely, went to the trouble of asking me what I thought about the awards, rather than asking my opponents what they imagined I thought.

It would appear that Barnett actually understood what I told him about the consequences of last year's ludicrous media coverage, and applied that understanding. “I think they [the Puppies campaigns] have successfully exposed the extent of the ideological bias in science fiction and fantasy publishing, and in the media. The media coverage last year was so insane and so over the top that it significantly boosted support for the Rabid Puppies.”
The annual Hugo awards for the best science fiction of the year have once again been riven by controversy, as a concerted campaign by a conservative lobby has dominated the ballot.

The Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies movements, which both separately campaign against a perceived bias towards liberal and leftwing science-fiction and fantasy authors, have managed to get the majority of their preferred nominations on to the final ballot, announced today.

This means that voters on the prestigious awards will now be choosing from a shortlist which includes SJWs Always Lie, an essay about “social justice warriors” by Rabid Puppies campaign leader Vox Day; a self-published parody of erotic dinosaur fiction called Space Raptor Butt Invasion, by Chuck Tingle; and My Little Pony cartoon The Cutie Map....

The Puppies factions will undoubtedly be celebrating their successes on the ballot, but for many people engaged in the science-fiction and fantasy genres this news will not be well-received. The Hugo awards, once the watchword of quality in the SFF world, appear to have been utterly derailed for the second year running.
Another Tor author, McRapey, was up to his usual tricks, attempting to minimize everything, including his own award-pimping and campaigning. Isn't it fascinating how many Tor authors are out there attempting to shape the media narrative? How utterly unexpected!
The Hugo finalists: John Scalzi on why the sad puppies can't take credit for Neil Gaiman's success

The Puppies will no doubt be happy to take credit for the appearance of these works and others on the finalist list. But, as with “Guardians of the Galaxy” last year, their endorsement probably doesn’t count for much in the grand scheme of things. “Seveneves,” one of the most talked-about science fiction books of 2015, was already a heavy favorite for an appearance on the finalist list for best novel.

Likewise, Gaiman’s long-awaited return to the beloved Sandman universe means his finalist listing in best graphic novel was the closest thing to a shoo-in that the Hugos have. If “The Martian” hadn’t been a finalist in its category (best dramatic presentation, long form), people would have been stunned.

In these cases as in several others, the Puppies are running in front of an existing parade and claiming to lead it. Few who know the field or the Hugos would give the slates credit for highlighting works and authors already well-appreciated in the genre, many of which have appeared this year as finalists for other awards or on bestseller lists.
Of course the Sad Puppies can't take any credit for Neil Gaiman's nomination. The Rabid Puppies were responsible! As for whether Gaiman would have been nominated without RP support, they like to claim that sort of thing, but we'll have to wait and see what the numbers say. Given their past record of ignoring popular, bestselling works, that's hardly a given. In any event, as we proved last year in Best Novel, even when we don't control the category, we still have the ability to decide who will win and who will lose when the SJWs don't No Award the category.

In other news, we have a runner! Tom Mays belatedly decided to go the way of Marko Kloos. Not the brightest move; the time for virtue-signaling is before the nominations are awarded. It's no big deal, not everyone can take the heat, although I suspect Tom is simply more of a Sad Puppy who hasn't woken up to the cultural war yet. I was more interested to see that Black Gate caved and decided to accept their nomination this year; John O'Neill is a smart guy, he knows perfectly well that the nomination is well-merited, he grasps the genetic fallacy, and I suspect he has come to terms with the fact that the Rabid Puppies are not going away any time soon.

It's a bit amusing to see the SJWs suggesting hopefully that EPH is going to somehow "solve" the "problem of the Puppies". Do they really think I didn't know, from the start, that they were going to change the rules? Or that I don't know, better than they do, what the consequences will be?

The real question of this year's awards is on what basis the administrators disqualified all five computer game nominations in the Best Dramatic Presentation categories. That bears investigation. But these are minor concerns, as for me the three most important factors are these:
  1.  The rocks are being overturned and the long-hidden problem of pedophilia in science fiction is finally beginning to be exposed. This is the real story.
  2.  Jerry Pournelle being recognized for his excellent and ground-breaking editorial work.
  3. SPACE RAPTOR BUTT INVASION!
I don't know if we'll see more than five categories no-awarded this year, but it doesn't matter. They didn't think the Rabid Puppies could do it this year, but once more, the Puppies demonstrated that the SJW Narrative is a false one and the oft-repeated insistence that everyone subscribes to it is a lie.

I also sent out a press release:

Read more »

Labels: ,

Older Posts
cdn title