SRS is used as a catch-all term for all similar communities on reddit. SRS self parodies, or they pretend to, and they also have rules about not brigading and so forth so that they don't get kicked off of reddit. They also bleed all over the place and into LOTS of other communities. There are MANY subs that have been "invaded" by troll mods who started out there or in some similar place and have run them into the ground.
SRS, though (and by 'SRS' I mean phony SJW trolls and their hangers on, primarily), is a cancer made of internet trolls. It doesn't stop at reddit, either, although yes obviously it's concentrated there and was born there.
"Assuming your analysis is sound, who the fuck exactly is '[SRS]' is it the population of a particular forum? Is it people who identify as '[SRS]'? Is it anybody who says anything negative about [Reddit]? Not being snarky, I honestly don't know.
The whole 'they' thing is a fallacy, [...] implying that the people posting BS comments on that [subreddit] are necessarily aligned ideologically with [SRS]. Ascribing 'wants' to 'them' seems too broad and not really fair (not that they aren't stupid fucking comments.)
I don't think you can use the comments area of a [subreddit] to credibly criticize an ideology/political party/anything except an individual commentator. I'm leery of how close this is to equating Islam with terrorism, liberalism with PETA, etc."
A group of people who systematically gain moderation privileges on forum communities and then apply the same formulaic trolling and alienating tactics time after time is not the same as a movement or ideology. SRS isn't all of reddit, or all trolls, or all SJWs, or all of anything. But they do have a modus operandi and they're quite successful with it. Not really analogous because the grouping is born of the behavior rather than how "they" self identify.
It'd be great if there was a better shorthand than "SRS" but I did go pretty far in my attempt to thoroughly qualify the term.
Well unless I guess you're saying not all of SRS participates beyond the bounds of their own subs, and fair enough. Although I think those subs tend to incubate that type, they don't all do it.
Not all white supremacists hang black guys. SRS is pretty much purpose built for hate mongering.
I still think it's better to group people (when grouping is necessary for the sake of discussion) by behaviors than by self-identification (or by your own assignation), which is one of the most exploitable things there is. SRS is a bad catch-all term because it refers to a defined community rather than a set of behaviors. Need a better one.
And that's back to semantics, which Scott hates. :P
Continuing my wall of me, I guess it's fair game to lump somebody in with a movement based on nothing but negativity if they claim identification with that group, but that's not what the subject of the quoted comments was.
So, GamerGate is basically nothing but a ball of butthurt misogynist bullshit, and if somebody says they're part of that whole thing or agrees with it, then fair game to call them a Gater. But if somebody says something you don't like and you see a parallel to GG... grey area, which was pretty much the point of all that stuff you quoted up there.
SRS is probably more amorphous, but not much, so, fair enough.
The trap becomes arguments where the point seems to be comparing two or more positions/ideologies/ideals by trying to burden each with their most loathsome so-called "proponents", which is gross. (ie, claiming that anybody who dares to say "egalitarian" is just invoking MRA dog-whistles or that anybody who says "feminism" means misandric bile, etc.)
Actually I was kinda saying the polar opposite of that.
Also that you can't apply the same standard to more positive or neutral groups. Somebody who self identifies with a positive movement or ideology but goes around trolling and spreading bullshit shouldn't be a valid means of discrediting that group.
So... what you've got then is a pretty subjective standard, I guess. What's a "positive" group? What's a "negative" group? In the case of GG, neo-Nazis, that sort of shit, it seems pretty cut and dry. Not so with many others.
I actually had thought SRS was a pretty cool group, because my only interaction was when I sarcastically posted this and people thought I was serious, and then someone linked me to this.
That was totally incomprehensible. Not passing judgment on his position. I have no idea what his position IS.
Brevity is a virtue, but heated issues like this tend to motivate people to over-qualify every sentence because they're anticipating multiple levels of backlash. He's also referencing about a thousand names, projects, etc I've never heard of in his first 3 or 4 paragraphs. I guess if you've been steeped in this whole "controversy", it might be a thorough summation, but I can't tell because to me it reads like the fine print on a car rental contract in a foreign country.
That was totally incomprehensible. Not passing judgment on his position. I have no idea what his position IS.
Dude, he has a summation of his disagreements in bullet-point form at the end of each section. How much easier can he make it for you to find out his position?
Understanding his bullets requires understanding of the copious references he's making throughout. His outline was obnoxious and jarring and probably presented too early (or shouldn't have been there at all.) It reads like a rebuttal of some very specific argument which is a prerequisite to understanding his. Given the tack he takes at the beginning (let me introduce myself to the new people), it seems like he jumps right into talking to the "faithful" immediately afterwards.
That was totally incomprehensible. Not passing judgment on his position. I have no idea what his position IS.
Dude, he has a summation of his disagreements in bullet-point form at the end of each section. How much easier can he make it for you to find out his position?
It's funny, because I fit the mold of the author's daughter. I've been a science fiction fan since age 3, but I only learned about Worldcon (and thus the mechanism behind the Hugos) a few years ago. Even then, that's only because I know people who go.
They seem to think that a convention that draws 4,000 nerdy science fiction people is large and noteworthy.
The degree to which they're out of touch is astonishing.
It's funny, because I fit the mold of the author's daughter. I've been a science fiction fan since age 3, but I only learned about Worldcon (and thus the mechanism behind the Hugos) a few years ago. Even then, that's only because I know people who go.
They seem to think that a convention that draws 4,000 nerdy science fiction people is large and noteworthy.
The degree to which they're out of touch is astonishing.
4,000 is smaller that Connecticon. It's a rinky dink operation. The majority of attendees are the old fogey grognard types.
I did some poking around, and the most-attended Worldcon ever had just under 9,000 attendees.
Honestly, that's still shockingly small to me.
WorldCon travels around the world and is an entirely new location every year. That really makes it difficult for it to have any sort of community of regular attendees other than megafans who can travel every year.
Also, as far as I know, pretty much the only content at WorldCon is literary sci-fi people doing panels. I don't think it has gaming, dancing, cosplay masquerade, or any of the other things that we are used to seeing at our conventions. Even when WorldCon happens to be in your hometown, there is little reason to go unless you want to sit and listen to crusty old guys talk about weiners.
I have more regular listeners to my science fiction book review podcast than the Hugo winners have votes. That's the thing that I always have to remember when I feel this is even a remotely valid topic to get worked up about.
That said, last year Worldcon was in London, and I looked into going. But all the special guests were old white men with bad facial hair, and pictures of general gatherings of attendants made me realize I wasn't going to fit in. At all.
It reminded me of the photos I posted here comparing average gaming convention panel attendees to juggling convention workshop participants.... but waaaaaay worse.
Get this, World Con is smaller than Zenkaikon by 1000 people!!! :-p lol. We should get some bullshit award going.
I mean, y'know, that's how they legit got the Hugos rolling.
I can think of few better ways to underscore the sheer unimportance of the Hugos than to have fan-run cons that are way bigger than Worldcon start their own awards.
I can think of few better ways to underscore the sheer unimportance of the Hugos than to have fan-run cons that are way bigger than Worldcon start their own awards.
Comments
The whole 'they' thing is a fallacy, [...] implying that the people posting BS comments on that [subreddit] are necessarily aligned ideologically with [SRS]. Ascribing 'wants' to 'them' seems too broad and not really fair (not that they aren't stupid fucking comments.)
I don't think you can use the comments area of a [subreddit] to credibly criticize an ideology/political party/anything except an individual commentator. I'm leery of how close this is to equating Islam with terrorism, liberalism with PETA, etc."
It'd be great if there was a better shorthand than "SRS" but I did go pretty far in my attempt to thoroughly qualify the term.
Not all white supremacists hang black guys. SRS is pretty much purpose built for hate mongering.
Hateful shits suck. Pigeon holing sucks too.
I still think it's better to group people (when grouping is necessary for the sake of discussion) by behaviors than by self-identification (or by your own assignation), which is one of the most exploitable things there is. SRS is a bad catch-all term because it refers to a defined community rather than a set of behaviors. Need a better one.
And that's back to semantics, which Scott hates. :P
So, GamerGate is basically nothing but a ball of butthurt misogynist bullshit, and if somebody says they're part of that whole thing or agrees with it, then fair game to call them a Gater. But if somebody says something you don't like and you see a parallel to GG... grey area, which was pretty much the point of all that stuff you quoted up there.
SRS is probably more amorphous, but not much, so, fair enough.
The trap becomes arguments where the point seems to be comparing two or more positions/ideologies/ideals by trying to burden each with their most loathsome so-called "proponents", which is gross. (ie, claiming that anybody who dares to say "egalitarian" is just invoking MRA dog-whistles or that anybody who says "feminism" means misandric bile, etc.)
Also that you can't apply the same standard to more positive or neutral groups. Somebody who self identifies with a positive movement or ideology but goes around trolling and spreading bullshit shouldn't be a valid means of discrediting that group.
So... what you've got then is a pretty subjective standard, I guess. What's a "positive" group? What's a "negative" group? In the case of GG, neo-Nazis, that sort of shit, it seems pretty cut and dry. Not so with many others.
Brevity is a virtue, but heated issues like this tend to motivate people to over-qualify every sentence because they're anticipating multiple levels of backlash. He's also referencing about a thousand names, projects, etc I've never heard of in his first 3 or 4 paragraphs. I guess if you've been steeped in this whole "controversy", it might be a thorough summation, but I can't tell because to me it reads like the fine print on a car rental contract in a foreign country.
Thankfully Instapaper.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/no-matter-what-happens-the-hugos-are-doomed
It's funny, because I fit the mold of the author's daughter. I've been a science fiction fan since age 3, but I only learned about Worldcon (and thus the mechanism behind the Hugos) a few years ago. Even then, that's only because I know people who go.
They seem to think that a convention that draws 4,000 nerdy science fiction people is large and noteworthy.
The degree to which they're out of touch is astonishing.
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/growing-generation-gap-changing-face-fandom/
Honestly, that's still shockingly small to me.
Also, as far as I know, pretty much the only content at WorldCon is literary sci-fi people doing panels. I don't think it has gaming, dancing, cosplay masquerade, or any of the other things that we are used to seeing at our conventions. Even when WorldCon happens to be in your hometown, there is little reason to go unless you want to sit and listen to crusty old guys talk about weiners.
That said, last year Worldcon was in London, and I looked into going. But all the special guests were old white men with bad facial hair, and pictures of general gatherings of attendants made me realize I wasn't going to fit in. At all.
It reminded me of the photos I posted here comparing average gaming convention panel attendees to juggling convention workshop participants.... but waaaaaay worse.
I can think of few better ways to underscore the sheer unimportance of the Hugos than to have fan-run cons that are way bigger than Worldcon start their own awards.