This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It seems exceptionally difficult to find a good non partisan discussion of it because it is so very "inside baseball" and emotions surrounding ing it have since come to run so high.
The extremely abridged version is that there came to be a perception that the hugos had become "captured" by Tor and Random House and that they had been using thier positions/market share to freeze out independent authors and those affiliated withother publishers that had previously refused to bend the knee, namely Baen. The specific mechanism being about who was allowed to vote in the nomination process, something about attendence at specific cons and such.
Anyway an effort lead by a few Baen authors most notably Larry Correia ("sad puppies" refers to a running gag on correia's blog) sought to break the Tor grip on the nomination process by getting thier fans into the cons and having them canvas the attendees and harvest ballots, to get more independent authors on the ballot, displacing some of Tor's favored authors
This is decried by the head of Tor as politicization of the Hugos, it was already political claims Correia.
The Hugos subsequently change the voting and nomination rules to aviod a repeat.
WorldCon didn't require physical attendance, but it did require membership, and few people realized how open the membership requirements were. Even for people who were in the know, most were aware of WorldCon membership as a great deal for voracious readers, since an annual remote membership (I think 40 USD?) would get you a free copy of most of the nominated works in a big folder, than for the ability to vote remotely.
Correia et all's claim was that regardless of who was allowed to vote, the actual voting for both nominations and final round was actually done by a pretty small and intellectually-cloistered group, turning from the
100 sort of people who read the WorldCon constitution to the500 sort of people who'd read Scalzi's and Glover's blog and somehow stay awake. Moreover, because of the nature of the nomination phase, it was very easy for a fairly small amount of coordination to overcome a lot of other more popular works.More options
Context Copy link
This is the basic outline, but it's worth mentioning that all this played out over the pattern of Social Justice driving community closure, as it was doing to countless communities at the time. 2013-2015 was when Social Justice hit critical mass, and started enforcing its preferences on online and offline communities. People who weren't on board became aware that it was happening, and tried to push back; in almost all cases, this resulted in a fight over legible, objective mechanisms of power and status; moderation positions, awards, control of events and so on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link