My post about leadership failures has touched a nerve with the failed leadership. First, Ms. Regina George’s sycophants decided to respond to my post by getting angry at other people on Facebook. But one of them, Jared, has finally found his balls and come over here to play with me directly. For that, at least, I give him credit. For the rest, not so much.
Before we begin, let’s remember the three laws of SJWs:
Now, let’s get into it.
Well, now that I am home and can actually write more than a line or two, I will respond. That I am “picking a fight with a girl” is your first falsehood, in attributing to me motives you cannot possibly discern, but it won’t be the last I point out.
No, Jared. I called you names to make you angry. This accomplished two goals. It turned your attention away from those you’d focused your attack on, directing it toward me (who can take it, easily). It also made you stupid, as we’ll see from the rest of the post.
Calling me a coward is also a falsehood, since, again, you have absolutely zero evidence to back up such a claim. You don’t know me from Adam, as I do not know you from Adam. However, given that you rush to defend someone who does not in fact need it does give me decent evidence to suggest that what you are displaying here is not manhood, but chauvinism.
Since Jared has, in fact, shown the courage to arrive here, I will retract the claim. Note, however, an important point: Jared’s entire argument is that I am lying. Yet right away he proves he doesn’t even understand the definition of the word. Lying is knowing something to be false yet saying it anyway. In this case, it is clearly not a lie. Jared acted like a coward, so I called him on it. Now that he has exhibited different behavior, I have corrected the record.
He is correct: someone is assuming intentions he can’t possibly know. What Jared doesn’t say in his response is that his very first comment was to accuse me of lying. So straight up, he assumed intentions he couldn’t possibly prove, and then accused me of the same thing.
Right here, we have all three rules on display. Jared is lying about my motives, he’s doubling down on already bad behavior from Ms. Regina George, and he’s projecting that lying and bad behavior onto me. But it gets better, as we will see all three rules on display throughout this screed.
That your first inclination to being disagreed with is to childishly attempt to make fun of my name also suggests chauvinism rather than manliness.
Here, Jared is following rule #3 and projecting. His first response to something he disagreed with was to go pick a fight with a girl and to simply call me a liar, rather than to actually engage with anything I said. I responded in kind, hard. But of course, he has to project his own feelings onto me. Note that now that there’s actually something to engage with, I engage.
As for your suggestion to step into the dojo, for any of us, the answer must needs be no. You don’t get to start a fight in the realm of words and then move the venue to somewhere you think you have the advantage would actually be evidence of cowardice.
Again, Jared projects. You see, I didn’t start any fights. I responded to an attack on one of my authors. Note that Ms. George made a similar attack nine months ago. I responded. Once. And then I let it go. Until she made the attack again. He did, however, finally find the courage to call me a liar to my face. So once more, I will give him the small amount of respect he deserves for that. Small.
That you alternate between white knighting for one woman and attempting to degrade another in this way is fascinating. It does reinforce my chauvinism theory, in that the words and tactics you use seem to indicate that you view woman as weaker and good for only a few specific things. In the end it is more degrading to you than anything else, so that is all I will say about that. (The crime is its punishment, as it were.)
Note here the next behavior, which is really Jared’s ultimate aim all along: it isn’t to actually debate anything. He merely wishes to disqualify. The problem with this tactic is that I was never part of his group to begin with, and I don’t have any desire to be. You can’t outgroup a sigma. It doesn’t work.
“I run two small businesses. I *HAVE* put my money where my mouth is…” That is not logically sound. Having your own business in one realm does not translate to anything in another realm entirely.
Jared hasn’t done his homework, which is clear from the beginning. One of my businesses is a publishing company. It is the same realm. Entirely the same realm. But he doesn’t actually care, because his goal is to disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. Also, SJWs always lie.
Given that you are now (as I type this) accusing those you disagree with as being SJW’s
I call things as they are. Jared acts like an SJW, I name him as such.
“This tale has everything, incompetence, insanity…” A calumny already, and not even a paragraph in. Charges of insanity would be below the belt for any real man, but I suppose it does count as evidence for my chauvinism theory.
When I see a grown woman going off the rails publicly insulting someone in a completely uncalled for way for no reason that makes any logical sense, I call it insanity. Note again, however, that he doesn’t actually argue the point. He merely tries to disqualify, disqualify, disqualify… because that’s what SJWs do.
“SPV failed in literally every conceivable way,” hyperbole *and* still false, as you are abrogating to yourself the power to determine for others what their goals were. There is a lot of that in this post.
Again, there is no attempt to actually argue the point – simply an accusation of lying. He shows no evidence to the contrary. He does not claim, at any point, what the Sad Puppies V goals actually were – only that my interpretation isn’t correct. Because he has no interested in argument, only disqualification.
“To be fair, Sad Puppies IV dropped the ball pretty badly and started the descent. The Hugo Awards allow five nominees per category… They nominated ten works per category, completely diffusing all of their voting power. As a result, they completely failed to get anything nominated for a Hugo that wasn’t also on Vox Day’s Rabid Puppies list.”
Again, you are assigning to them motives and goals they did not have. The point was not to swamp the Hugos, but to show that, even when they ostensibly did what the other side was saying we should do to be ‘respected’ it wouldn’t actually change the response. Rabid Puppies goals were not the same as SP. Last year it would seem that *both* met their goals, they simply diverged as to what those goals were.
At last we have an actual argument. Here he does claim SPIV has different goals than my interpretation. Yet still, he only backs up my first point that their goals were pointless. Everybody involved already knew this, which is why SP participation dropped dramatically. Nobody cared.
“Think that’s bad? SPV got even stupider. Rather than promoting a confined ballot of books that could focus their firepower, they diffused it further. What is SPV? “Oh, we’ll just create a list of indefinite size of recommended books. For any award, not just the Hugos.”
That is a fail only by *your* metrics. You are not in charge of Sad Puppies and do not get to decide what their goals are. Personally I think continuing to give money needlessly to people who hate us would be a much bigger failing. You are of course welcome to your opinion, but just stating it here doesn’t make it truth, so while not strictly a lie it is a falsehood as you are attempting to dictate to others without any right to do so.
Sure, it’s failure by my metrics. Give me other metrics. Regina George provided no metrics by which to judge Sad Puppies V, so I use mine. If you have other metrics, fine. You know what? That’s still a leadership failure, because leadership provided no metrics.
“Hugo Award nominations were due on January 31st.” Yes, they were. Given that SPV is explicitly no longer worried about the Hugos that matters not one whit. If you want a list for the Hugos, Vox Popoli is over yonder. Have fun storming the castle and paying for comped meals for the attendees. Seriously, all the best in your endeavors. I wish you luck. That said, you don’t get to forcibly conscript others or their groups for that effort.
For someone complaining about ‘shooting at your own team’ you seem to engage in it a lot. You may disagree, but avoiding that is one very good reason not to name a party to a disagreement after said disagreement is worked out. Of course I imagine you disagreeing with this statement will include one or more uses of the word ‘pussy’ so whatever.
Ms. George drew first blood, not me. She launched an unprovoked attack on my author, Declan Finn. As I noted above, she could – and should – have let this matter die in January. But as Mr. Finn’s editor and publisher, I have a relationship at stake. She’s speaking publicly and badly of my author less than a month before we launch his book, and yes, she has a far louder megaphone than I do. Even if he did everything she’s accused him of, there was no reason to bring him up now.
So if she shoots at me and mine, I will shoot back. My megaphone is far smaller than hers, but I’m not afraid of her bullying or her sycophants stepping in for her. Bringing this issue up now, right before his book launch, is a direct financial shot at both Mr. Finn and myself. So yes, I will shoot back.
Anyone who is actively shooting at me and mine is not on my side.
“But do you know what an actual leader does when it becomes clear that she’s too sick to, you know, lead?
She steps down and finds a new leader. She would’ve had plenty of volunteers.”
I would have thought someone so concerned with ‘picking fights with girls’ wouldn’t be one to rush in and declare for a woman that she is too sick to do something. Since she is in fact a grown woman she can make that determination just fine on her own, and since, apparently, they had never intended to worry about the Hugos at all the issue wasn’t pressing anyway.
And yes, she would have volunteers. Just because they would volunteer doesn’t necessarily mean they are right for the job. Turning SP into a copy of RP would be one of those ‘not right for the job’ issues.
I didn’t declare her too sick to do something. She declared that, in her own blog posts, in her own words. And yes, she can make that determination. And like any other grown woman, she can be wrong. Clearly in this case she was.
So Declan is wrong for the job. I might not even disagree with that. There were plenty of other people available who would have done it, and it still doesn’t give her an excuse to be a bitch to him in public.
“Meanwhile, while she’s going about abject failure at every level, she’s projecting all of her own incompetence, greed, and narcissistic attention whoring onto other people.”
Well, here’s one of the bigger falsehoods of the piece. Objection, facts not in evidence would be where I would start, and that if before digging into the amazing amounts of calumny on display.
Jared is clearly done with any actual argument now, and he resorts again to just accusing me of falsehood. Rule 3: SJWs always project. Rule 2: SJWs always double down.
“Meanwhile, of course, the sole reason she’s holding onto “leadership” of SPV, despite running the Titanic straight into the iceberg, is so that she can use it to market her books.”
That’s straight up a lie.
Copy and paste my previous comment. It applies exactly here as it did before.
“Failure #6 – Refusing to let it go”
I assume you are familiar with the third law? I would not dream of calling you an SJW, but the third law does apply to more than just them.
“Here’s a tip, Sarah: lay off my authors and get back to work…”
Funny, my advice to you would be fairly similar.
Very familiar, as I’ve quoted it throughout this essay. Jared again projects. He accuses me of refusing to let it go when, in fact, I did let it go for six months. Ms. George could and should have let it go and chose not to. Fine.
Sarah Hoyt’s leadership of the Sad Puppies V campaign is a classic case study in leadership failure. If you ever want the absolute pitch perfect example of what not to do in a leadership position, look no further. This tale has everything: incompetence, insanity, bullying, harassment, technical difficulties, lack of vision, and just plain bitchiness. If I tried to create an example of bad leadership from scratch, I couldn’t make one this complete. If she were trying to destroy the Sad Puppies campaign and help the other side, she couldn’t have done a better job of it.
This, my friends, is a tail of abject, utter fail.
Sad Puppies V (SPV from here out) failed in literally every conceivable way, so this may take a bit. Bear with me.
Step one in leadership is setting goals that are actually a) worth achieving and b) achievable. SPVs supposed goals are neither.
To be fair, Sad Puppies IV dropped the ball pretty badly and started the descent. The Hugo Awards allow five nominees per category, and the nature of the old rules meant that an organized campaign around exactly five titles per category could achieve useful results. So what did they do with Sad Puppies IV?
They nominated ten works per category, completely diffusing all of their voting power. As a result, they completely failed to get anything nominated for a Hugo that wasn’t also on Vox Day’s Rabid Puppies list.
GG guys. GG.
Think that’s bad? SPV got even stupider. Rather than promoting a confined ballot of books that could focus their firepower, they diffused it further. What is SPV? “Oh, we’ll just create a list of indefinite size of recommended books. For any award, not just the Hugos.”
Look, guys, this is a core martial arts principal:
If I apply a given amount of force over a small area, I create more pressure than if I apply the same amount of force over a large area.
This is easily expressed in a simple and common law of physics: Pressure = Force / Area (P = F / A).
By diffusing the force of SPV basically infinitely, Hoyt doomed the campaign to epic failure before she even began.
But that’s just the beginning.
After defining some dumbass goals that she could never possibly achieve, Hoyt went on to… do nothing.
Hugo Award nominations were due on January 31st. Hoyt made a Hugo post announcing her leadership stupidity… er, I mean, “plan,” in September. And then posted nothing – literally nothing – on the topic again until January 7, less than four weeks before ballots were due.
Of course, she
made noisy, stupid excuses pretended that this was the plan all along, because SPV wasn’t about the Hugos anymore. Because nobody would see through that bullshit. And how they had a web site coming real soon now, guys, really, I just haven’t had time to do it.
Look, I run five separate web sites. All of them use WordPress. You can set up a WordPress site in three minutes. You can make it look acceptable and flesh out some basic content in about ten. I know. I’ve done it a dozen times.
But, of course, she’s behind on her paying writing. Well, of course she is. Because she’s moved on to…
Did I mention that she wrote a post about SPV on January 7? Did I also mention that the post didn’t do anything to actually advance SPV? Ok, let’s talk about that. Because instead of doing anything useful, Hoyt decided to make a very personal attack on one of my authors.
Finn’s crime, of course, was volunteering to help but not being cool enough to actually be leadership. It’s horrible, I know.
Meanwhile, Finn had actually managed to, you know, actually get a recommendation list up. Which is still more than Hoyt has managed.
Apparently Hoyt has had some serious health issues for a while. For that, I am truly sorry. I don’t wish that on anyone.
But do you know what an actual leader does when it becomes clear that she’s too sick to, you know, lead?
She steps down and finds a new leader. She would’ve had plenty of volunteers.
Meanwhile, while she’s going about abject failure at every level, she’s projecting all of her own incompetence, greed, and narcissistic attention whoring onto other people. She accused Mr. Finn of volunteering for Sad Puppies just to help market his book, and went on at length about how much it didn’t help and he should let it go.
Meanwhile, of course, the sole reason she’s holding onto “leadership” of SPV, despite running the Titanic straight into the iceberg, is so that she can use it to market her books. The reason it hasn’t helped her isn’t because it’s a bad marketing tool. It’s because she’s totally incompetent at it.
There is no question that earlier Sad Puppies rounds resulted in beneficial publicity for Larry Correia, Brad Torgersen, and Vox Day. None. Larry and Brad kind of rode the wave a little bit. Vox Day masterfully turned the whole thing into a publicity coup d’etat.
Sarah Hoyt crashed the wave into a brick wall. A wet noodle could’ve reaped more benefit from it than she has. But due to her own narcissism, she refuses to let go of it.
Given all of this, you’d think that somebody who spent months literally doing nothing would have an easy time just… letting it go. But now, that play would require at least some competence, and Hoyt has demonstrated that she has absolutely none. So instead, she’s penning more posts about the subject as recently as yesterday.
But is she actually accomplishing anything? Nope, she’s just out playing Mean Girls again. She’s hitting hard on Mr. Finn (while still lacking any courage and refusing to name him out loud), and also hitting on everyone around him.
In a word, an author of mediocre success is trying to bully a less successful author in order to feel better about her own failure. She’s admitted herself that she’s several books behind, and no wonder. She’s too busy writing several-thousand-word-long insanity-fests.
Here’s a tip, Sarah: lay off my authors and get back to work, before your publishers call and demand their advances back – as they have every legal and moral right to do if you’re that far behind.