Weekend Warrior retweeted
The worst part is the oil industry conspired to manufacture a drop after the midterms
So yeah, a lot of people genuinely think the Democrats pulled the big "Gas Prices" level down
Replying to @JadeAtrophis
Lmao, he think the Dems are actually going to do something about gas proces and groceries
Weekend Warrior retweeted
TL;DR warning. One of the most fascinating things about the past ten years has been watching different people who weren't part of Sad Puppies speak authoritatively on Sad Puppies.
I have my own thoughts, of course.
Understand that everything I am about to say, I say as a guy with several authorial accolades under his belt, including the DragonCon Dragon for Best SF novel in 2019, and three readers' choice awards from Analog magazine in 2010, 2012, and 2014. I was also the rare triple-nominee for Hugo, Nebula, and Campbell awards in 2012.
So . . . did Sad Puppies fail?
For my part I wanted the Hugos to have broad cultural relevance within literary SF again. Versus continuing their long slide into activism-induced irrelevance. In this regard Sad Puppies 3 failed spectacularly. The net dividend of 2015 was the power brokers of Worldcon declaring, "We're gonna Feminist and Queer the Hugos even HARDER!" and that's precisely how it went.
The Hugos are now ignored by the great majority of spec fic and fantasy readers because they know beyond a shadow of a doubt the award has been made into an explicitly political activist totem.
As of 2026 only a fraction of spec fic and fantasy readers even know who the Hugo winners are year to year, and most who remember the Hugos think of the Hugos as they think of almost all entertainment awards: that legacy thing we used to care about but we've stopped caring about because people on stages giving each other trophies doesn't matter to the consumer like it did a few decades ago.
It was already becoming true by 2010. Much moreso, now. Grammys, Emmys, Oscars, yadda. Just don't have the cultural heft of the 1970s-1990s. And the same for both the Hugo and Nebula. Which are not signposts of quality (on a book cover) like they once were. In fact, for many readers they are a, "Stay away, this is a Modern Audience (said in Drinker voice) book!"
And that's precisely what I wanted reversed. Because I remember when the words HUGO WINNER and NEBULA WINNER on a dust jacket actually described what was between the covers. Like with Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead.
But the opposite occurred. Because the Nielsen-Haydens and George R. R. Martin and many other people with media reach and influence decreed that no dirty normal Hugo voters would have a say in their sainted backroom politicized log-rolling process. The Hugos would be perma-Woke.
And so they are. And that's a damned shame, because most readers don't give the Hugos any regard anymore—as they don't give most lit awards any regard.
And if you doubt it ask yourself if Ann Leckie is bigger than Heinlein? Who has been dead for decades. But he outsells Leckie 20 to 1 on Grandpa Bob's slow days.
They hate Heinlein for that. They want him dustbinned.
They tried their best to make Leckie into a thing. Heaped every award possible on her between 2014 and 2016. And all that resulted were massive stacks of deluxe boxed merchandise at B&N locations. With the words HAS WON EVERY SCIENCE FICTION AWARD KNOWN TO MAN plastered across the slipcases and the special selection signage. But the merchandise didn't move.
I repeat: the merchandise didn't move.
They tried the same thing from '16-'18 with Nora Jemisin, and it was a similar result: triple-Hugo Best Novels that sat on shelves. And kept sitting.
Neither Leckie nor Jemisin are bigger than Heinlein. Both remain midlist activist authors who could not be catapulted over the cultural relevance wall by any means, because that's not how a literary work (nor author) achieves long-standing relevance in both geek culture and the wider English-speaking culture as a whole.
You know who does have relevance?
J.K. Rowling. Or Orson Scott Card. Or any dozen other caps-n Names nobody needs to spotlight trophies about. Because their books gained and kept vast audiences all on their own power. Much like Heinlein's.
The dog of culture cannot be wagged.
You can take over institutions believing you will take over culture, but it doesn't really work like that. The Soviet system dominated the Eastern Bloc for most of a century. It literally owned every institution. But all it did was teach generations of Iron Curtain dwellers to subsist on black humor about how their supposed Socialist paradise was in fact a corrupt hell of bureaucrats, toadies, secret police, and fear.
I believe we're entering something like that, where American pop culture is concerned. The Woke own the big gaming companies, along with gaming media. But who's buying and playing the games?
Similarly, the Woke own the big movie studios and all of the media media, but ticket sales have cratered on huge blockbuster projects over and over, and keep cratering.
More broadly, the Woke own the Ivy League, but all this does is make people question if the Ivy League still matters anymore? Or, does a PhD even matter if the person putting those letters next to their name is a raving loon stuffed with terrible ideas and terrible politics, like a rotten Christmas turkey?
You can corrupt an organization, but you cannot corrupt people if they don't want to be corrupted.
In this regard Sad Puppies was a spectacular success. Because it was the loud, emphatic shout of the normie SF/F reader who used to esteem the Hugo and refused to let the Hugo go quietly into the night. People who could not be convinced that mediocre or even terrible storytelling with Woke wrappings and trappings was in fact brilliant and timeless.
Again, the dog of culture cannot be wagged.
The Hugo Awards (or more fittingly, the Women In Speculative Fiction Awards) are an interesting case study in skin-suiting and how it operates in practice.
The quoted tweet is an infographic of winners which demonstrates that right around 2016 something shifted, with nearly every award going to women and mostly to queer-themed books from then on. OP attributes this to a rule change following the sad-puppy affair, which has some truth to it but I think mostly misses the mark and misunderstands the dynamics of the sad-puppy movement and how it failed.
For those not in the know: from 2013 to 2017 a minority of Hugo voters organized a slate of what we would now call "anti-woke" nominees to push back against what they saw as creeping left-wing influence in the nomination process. For some reason they called this movement the sad puppies and later the rabid puppies (no idea where the name came from). They had limited success until 2015, when their slate made it onto the ballot in many categories, meaning that Hugo voters only could vote on one of the "anti-woke" nominees in those categories. This caused a major scandal, as many prominent voting members were locked into nominees they didn't want to win. Voters can also vote for "no-winner" in any category, and that's what won most of the categories where the puppies got their slate in place. After this disappointing outcome, Hugo changed the rules, basically to nerf slate tactics. Because there are hundreds of published works every year and only five nominees per category, a small minority of voters acting as a bloc can get their 5 books on the final ballot. To counteract this, they changed the nomination process so that every nomination ballot gets 1 point distributed among all nominees on that ballot, which has the effect of diluting slate bloc votes.
So that's the background. Men used to win most Hugo awards, and now win basically none. Queer-themed books have more or less taken over. The sad puppies attempted a coup, were beaten back, and the trends they tried to overturn have won the day completely.
There are a couple important things to understand about how this went down.
First, Hugo voting membership is open to anyone. You just pay your dues and you get to vote on the awards. The titles that are nominated and win are a reflection of who those dues-paying members want to win. There is no sinister conspiracy at play to make woke books win, just the individual choices of the thousands of voting members. Hugos are going to the titles that its membership wants them to go to.
Second, the sad puppies were themselves counter-revolutionaries to this mostly-completed takeover. They noticed that by 2013 many awards were going to books with leftist themes written by leftist authors instead of to the best books, which they thought was an injustice and a perversion of the awards. They were fighting back against a late-stage skin-suiting operation. They are the end of that story, not the beginning.
Third, the puppies were a small minority of overall Hugo voters. They were able to game the rules of nomination to get their slates on the ballot, but the fact that "no-winner" won most of these categories demonstrates that they were in fact a small minority. When the Hugos changed the rules, it wasn't a shadowy elite silencing the voice of normal people, it was them closing a procedural loophole which let a small minority dominate the nomination process.
When we talk about skin-suiting, we often imagine it in terms of warfare or espionage, of a few determined entryists managing to get inside the walls, get some amount of power, then twist the rules of the institution to bring more of their friends onboard. This is part of it, but not the main part, not most of the time. Most of the time, it's the boring ordinary process that happened to the Hugos: anybody can be a member (for a small fee), and the people who cared more joined in larger numbers and got their way. The very term "entryist" assumes some measure of subterfuge, of some amount of gatekeeping to prevent such malign influence. But typically this isn't true. The gate is wide open.
"The king of Minimum Wage dictated it, and so it must be.
Do not bring up Margaret Sanger. We already know."
FDR was very explicit when creating the minimum wage that it should be a livable wage.
This idea that minimum wage jobs are starter jobs is corporate propaganda used to defend paying people substandard wages.
13
Weekend Warrior retweeted
Just think of lecherous old men vs old women and how weird Madonna is for fucking and sucking at 75 vs someone like Mick Jagger.
This whole argument is just "women are shorter on average"
"But my sister is tall??"
How many women die gooning in septic tanks?
Weekend Warrior retweeted
I see we're once again doing that thing where "I call myself John" sounds weird and pompous in English, and therefore it's perfectly reasonable to translate "Je m'appelle Jean" as "It's ya boy Big Johnny on unceded Ojibwe land."
They would sue for this libel by misattribution but nobody who knows anything about IGN thinks this has done any damage to their credibility.
FUN FACT: 82% of nurses pursued nursing so they could take pictures in scrubs.
(Source: @IGN)
1
42
Weekend Warrior retweeted
Food stamp advocate SELF-DESTRUCTS as Rep. Brandon Gill presses her on why taxpayers pay for Coca-Cola.
She tries to dodge the question. Then Gill pulls out the receipts, and she sits there in stunned silence.
GILL: “Should SNAP dollars be spent on sodas?”
WITNESS: “I am happy to talk about hunger and nutrition, but not dictate what Americans should or should not eat or may have access to.”
GILL: “I’m asking if tax dollars should be used to pay for sodas.”
“Do they need sugary sodas to survive?”
WITNESS: “Some of them do…”
GILL: “You think they need Coca-Cola to survive?”
“I’m giving you the opportunity to say yes or no.”
WITNESS: “I will not answer for individuals and their… choices.”
GILL: “What does SNAP stand for?”
WITNESS: “It’s a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.”
GILL: “What’s nutritional about Coca-Cola?”
WITNESS: “I am not a nutritionist.”
Then Gill asks who’s paying her, and she freezes like a deer in headlights.
GILL: “Is your organization funded by organizations that make money from food stamps?”
[awkward silence]
GILL: “Do organizations who profit off of food stamps fund your organization or businesses?”
WITNESS: “I mean, in the, in the, I, I can’t comment to that.”
GILL: “Does General Mills fund your organization?”
WITNESS: “I don’t have access to that information.”
GILL: “I do. It’s right here. They do fund your organization. […] Yes, and they’re profiting off of your advocacy. Do you think that that’s a conflict of interest?”
[more silence]
GILL: “I think most people think that’s a conflict of interest. I know you don’t want to answer.”
Always follow the money.
CONTEXT: USDA’s own study found soft drinks were the #1 purchase in SNAP households, beating milk, ground beef, and everything else in the store.
Weekend Warrior retweeted
Women talk about developing empathy like a female Columbus discovering The New World that's already populated by men.
Weekend Warrior retweeted
Why is it so impossible to say “Some jobs are for teenagers and college students and you’re supposed to stop doing them when your lifestyle demands a higher income”?
Weekend Warrior retweeted
He's right though. The guy just doesn't get it. But that's because it's a cheat. It's a scam. You're being played. The purpose of a thing is what it does.
And the purpose of this entire meme was for adult women to hurt young men. To punish them.
But how could we possibly know?
Consider the response meme: "Would you rather tell a woman how you feel or a tree?"
And this was devastating. That's why, as a meme, it was killed almost immediately.
Whereas the number of men who were violent towards women is vanishingly small, the number of men who interact with women is constant. Everywhere. All the time.
And those men do not trust those women. At all.
Further, unlike the bear meme, which was really just performative cruelty, these men were speaking candidly about how they really felt.
Did any of the women who read that meme listen? Hell, how often did they even respond to it? Or, did they do exactly what the meme said they'd do... dismiss it. Mock it. Shame it. Ridicule it.
Well, we all saw how that played out.
Conversely, I can't think of a single woman that had her teeth knocked out because of the bear meme.
The bear meme assigned guilt (notice how the guy always looks like a very specific kinda guy, also not accidental) and through that guilt shame.
It's meant to hurt.
And that's what so few of the men who respond to this meme get. They think the meme is an arguable scenario, that a discussion can be had, when that was never the intention to begin with. The belief that discussion was an option to begin with was part of the trap itself. It sucks you in and demands you convince someone that hates you that you're worthy based on standards you could never possibly live up to.
Which is why it was pushed as hard as it was.
If a woman posts this meme understand she's doing it for the express purpose of being cruel in a manner that gives her plausible deniability. Nothing more, nothing less.
It certainly isn't about empathy.
































