Who are these puppy kickers?

In the past I’ve written about the SJW Howler Monkeys, individuals with Special Snowflake Syndrome, and extreme SJW sweathogs like TrigglyPuff – people so attached to their victimhood and entitlement, that they insist on safe spaces, demand special accommodations, such as imaginary pronouns, and work to end to speech they don’t like and destroy those who engage in such speech. In other words, they stomp through the developed world, leaving piles of ostracized and unemployed victims,  and decimated logic in their wake.

chunk-chorfIt is these creatures that are closely tied with individuals we call CHORFs (Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics) or puppy kickers – those sniffy, snotty, arrogant, easily-offended, intolerant (although, if you ask them, they’re the tolerant ones – of everything except the cisheteropatriarchywhatever), condescending  rodents.

As I wrote about the Dragon Awards this weekend, I predicted that the CHORFs – mostly excluded from the fun and honors – would “clutch their pearls, gnash their teeth, and snottily declare that the Dragon Awards don’t matter, because they’re not part of that elite clique of haughty Hugo recipients and nominees.” I projected they would immediately condemn the Dragon Awards as irrelevant and Puppy-driven, even though the awards were open to everyone, no one had to buy a membership to vote, and the process was completely transparent.

And I was right.

Remember PedoPhil?

Remember PedoPhil?

The shit-fest on CHORF sites and on Twitter is hilarious! Some bitterly and dismissively waved their little hands and claimed they’re glad the Puppies now have their own award, so they should leave their revered Hugos alone! Others – the usual suspects, of course – sniffed that the Dragon Awards were hijacked by neo-fascists, thereby relegating thousands of fans who voted for works they enjoyed to the bin of racism, hatred, misogyny, and any other prejudice they could think of.

Injustice Gamer documents some of the hilarious reactions here. Oh, the schadenfreude! It’s making my naughty bits tingle!

And then there were others, who implied on this very site that because many of the winners were recommended by the evil overlord of racism, homophobia, and misogyny Vox Day, they obviously didn’t count. These CHORFs see Vox Day as the boogieman under every bed. Anything that doesn’t conform to their idea of quality work, necessarily must be discounted, bad, and ultimately the work of the dastardly Vox.

I started thinking today about the types of people these CHORFs really are, and it occurred that they fit a particular type.

Insecure. They pathologically work to exclude anyone who doesn’t engage in their groupthink by disparaging and marginalizing those they claim are less refined and profound. Books shouldn’t just be fun, they claim. Low-class, boorish, simple entertainment shouldn’t win awards, they assert. All this to advance the perception that they are somehow more sophisticated and urbane. Many of them can’t sell books that entertain for the mere enjoyment of reading, so they create these lofty plateaus for the purpose of showing just how worldly and cultivated they are.

If you don’t enjoy their brand of pretentious word vomit, you simply are not suave enough.

Miserable, apprehensive, and mediocre, the only way they have to build themselves up is by tearing down others.

This contrived arrogance allows them to erect an image of themselves – if only in their own minds – of quality and virtue.

Frightened. The CHORFs are pathologically intimidated by criticism. They’re terrified. They huddle together in a tight group of mediocrities in order to protect themselves from any appraisal that’s less than complimentary to either their pet causes. Whether it’s “tolerance” for the victim class, whatever they may be that day, or promotion of works, artists, and authors whose only virtue is being as far away from the mainstream as possible. Anyone who challenges the heterodoxy frightens them so badly, they must be destroyed.

Unhappy. The toxicity surrounding the CHORFs is palpable. Misery is their natural state. Joy is dull to them. They aren’t interested in laughter and optimism. Those are too light. Ennui is more profound and cultured. Simple fun and entertainment is… well… simple. Melancholy is deep and complex. This reinforces their superiority armor – the shield they use to cover up their miserable inadequacies. After all, if you’re happy, you must be too shallow to be as enlightened as they are. Therefore, they’re just too good for you.

Compassionate. At least that’s how they want to appear. They want to be the defenders of the oppressed, the protectors of the meek, the white knights for anyone who is not straight, white, male, successful, or strong. Because after all, those people don’t need the CHORFs’ contrived sympathy.

white knightBut it’s not enough to shield the exploited from the torment by the strong. The strong must be destroyed. The successful must be suppressed. The rich must be stripped of their wealth. The hetero male has had his day, and must now be pulled out of the spotlight, because no one should hear what he has to say any longer. The hetero male is not important. It’s the turn of those whom he has oppressed for so long to have a voice. And if that voice has nothing of quality to say, that’s fine. They will make it quality.

They will push it in the faces of the rest of the world and loudly trumpet how important and interesting that oppressed voice is, while proclaiming anyone who disagrees with the assessment of the quality of said voice as ignorant, hateful, bigoted, and narrow-minded. They have compassion for anyone who is not successful. They show sympathy, kindness, and grace to anyone who proclaims to be miserable, abused, exploited, and mistreated. It doesn’t have to be true. It just needs to be perceived and claimed to be true.

Elitist. This really goes along with the CHORFs’ insecurity. Being exclusive makes them feel superior. It provides value, even when there is none. Because when just anyone is allowed into a club, it’s no longer special. And when just anyone is allowed to vote on an award without being forced to purchase a membership, it’s an award for the plebes.

Deluded. Everything they accuse the Puppies of, they’re guilty of themselves. Elitism and exclusion. Who “No Awarded” entire categories of Hugo awards just to keep the “undesirables” from winning? Cheating. Who changed the rules for Hugo nominations this year to counter block voting, because dog forbid the “undesirables” capture the majority of categories? Fascism,elitism, and a loathing for equality. Who held an exclusive, private party last year for those whom the CHORFs “No Awarded” last year, because the Puppies’ choices got more votes? Who threatened careers and engaged in character assassinations? It certainly wasn’t the Sad Puppies.

But hey, don’t let the facts get in your way.

Sad PuppiesI’ll be honest. I’m tired of these people. I’ve taken a lot of time and effort to try and understand them, but frankly, what I discovered is that they’re a sad, miserable lot, who I wish would keep their own promises and relegate themselves to their froth-flecked circle jerk and leave the Puppies alone.

But they won’t, because they’re nothing without an enemy. They don’t have a purpose without their canine boogieman. They can’t be white knights riding in to rescue the vapid damsel in distress if there’s no evil (white, male) antagonist from whom to rescue her.

That’s the real reason they keep flogging the Puppies, even when the Puppies have nothing to do with a particular award, such as the Dragon.

Because without us, they’re nothing.


41 responses

  1. I sometimes think that when sad puppies happened it was like Christmas. Rather than a shadowy threat or impersonal patriarchy, suddenly there was some real group of real people to point at as a threat. This explains perfectly how racially and ethnically and gender and religious and internationally diverse people became white men and a rather simple message about bringing back the concept of wonder in order to expand the field became racism.

    And here we are in a literary community at a point of max absurdity (one can hope we’ve reached the apex) where the concept of Free Speech itself is viewed as controversial.

    I’m tempted at this point to start using terms like “right side of history” in a non ironic manner.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. I suspect that the only cure for this sort of mental condition is…er…illegal.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Unless there is a Call of the Clans I figure I am pretty much finished with World Con and the Hugos I will concentrate on authors and conventions that do not go out of their way to insult me, Now I think I may be a supporting member for next year because I paid to vote for the 2018 location, Will figure out what to do next year but that will probably be the last.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I’m the same way – if Sarah, Larry, Nicki, Brad, et al ask for help, I’ll be there, but the Hugos are rapidly fading into irrelevance. Let it die, and let them scream more and more loudly as Worldcon starts hitting the point where it can’t afford to book a hotel.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “…without us, they’re nothing.”

    That’s the key. The CHORFs are a relatively small subset of SF/F readers — and that’s assuming, most generously, that they actually read the books they promote. Fandom is far larger, and is almost entirely uninterested in their fetishes. If the Dragons are more representative — and from everything I’ve been reading, they are — the influence of the CHORFs who control the Hugos is about to dwindle to insignificance.

    But I must repeat my previous warning: These are people who worship power, especially power that comes with a cultural component. That gives them an edge in the pursuit of it. They’ll target the organizational structure of the Dragons for infiltration and eventual control. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I know some of the people who are in charge of organizing Dragon Con. I think that as long as they are alive, the CHORFs will not gain control.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I hope you’re right. More, I hope those good folks retain their positions for a long, long time. But people age, they get tired, they seek variety, they give way to replacements, and inevitably new personnel filter in. The challenge is to retain the political independence DragonCon has exhibited so far — and as titles change hands and responsibilities shift and mutate, it will be a challenge. The SJWs have a short agenda — power for them and silence for the rest of us — and they never, ever relent.

        “Any organization not explicitly right wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” — Robert Conquest’s Second Law of Politics.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Sorry I didn’t stay up late last night, or I’d have read it sooner. This is a very good article to use as a reference in regard to how anyone in the creative arts has to forge ahead, regardless of attempts to intimidate him – or HER! or IT! (Just being all-inclusive there.) Access to the internet and websites like CreateSpace and Smashwords give people who might otherwise get nowhere real opportunities. I think that may be the greatest threat of all to the CHORFs and SPkickers: they can’t stop the creative flow, no matter how much they want to.

    Awards? I competed in horse shows. I have a bag full of my old ribbons. I competed in figure skating. I still haven’t unpacked those little trophies. See what I mean? Threats? I eat threats for breakfast.

    Look, we all want to be heard. That’s the benefit of indie publishing. Traditional publishing is in turmoil, and has become filled with financial scams that would get most people arrested. That does not stop the creative flow, and people are wising up to just how corrupt that business has become. The SPkickers and CHORFs are acting as their handmaids, a pathetic footnote to their existence as control freaks and fearful little troglodytes hovering on the edges, watching others succeed while they cook up their next bit of Intimidation 101.

    Yeah, I think they’ll fade away. Their selfie porn gets boring after a while.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. “…without us, they’re nothing.”

    And the Great Fear is… irrelevance. Which they brought upon themselves.

    The Elitism section reminded me of an old radio show (I forget the title, alas, but it was different-people-adventure sort of thing each week – not something with a regular cast of characters) about a cross-continent (Africa? Asia? South America?) auto trek that hadn’t been done before. It was the real sort of American Exceptionalism – that the Americans doing it didn’t see it as exceptional, but that “Anyone could do it” and well, they were anyone, weren’t they, so why not them? So they did. Yes, fiction, and even with a message, but ah what a glorious message – given in a good story. Just the thing some folks would just hate.


  7. “Unhappy. The toxicity surrounding the CHORFs is palpable. Misery is their natural state. Joy is dull to them. They aren’t interested in laughter and optimism. Those are too light. Ennui is more profound and cultured. Simple fun and entertainment is… well… simple. Melancholy is deep and complex. This reinforces their superiority armor – the shield they use to cover up their miserable inadequacies. After all, if you’re happy, you must be too shallow to be as enlightened as they are. Therefore, they’re just too good for you.”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. So just WHY is it that misery and suffering is more “profound” than triumph over adversity and other achievement, or simple joy in life?

      That’s the question they can’t answer. But my belief is that they’ve never felt the latter, so works expressing those sorts of things (be they literary, musicial or visual arts) don’t “speak” to them.

      In fact they find them threatening, and the reason for THAT would probably make heads explode if they ever were forced to face it. (I am put in mind of James Taggart’s richly-deserved meltdown scene in Atlas Shrugged.)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “But my belief is that they’ve never felt the latter, so works expressing those sorts of things (be they literary, musicial or visual arts) don’t “speak” to them.”

        Bingo. Neither happiness nor misery, as an emotion, is more important than the other, but due to experience only one resonates with these people.

        I still need to finish reading Atlas Shrugged. That was bucket-listed a couple years ago 😦

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I am going to have to disagree with you. Misery and suffering is more profound because they have never experienced it. Their lives have been without real challenge. and all they really have known is the simple joys of life. Part of what makes us humans is that we want challenges to overcome. SJW’s have not had anything that actually challenges them (things like everybody is a winner erases challenge by making you feel like you accomplished something with no effort therefore making it not a challenge). Without Challenges to be found SJW’s created their own imaginary demons to face. Because they are imaginary they can fight those demons forever and get the feeling of triumph when they force others to acknowledge and fight their imaginary demons. At the same time them being imaginary they need ways to reinforce the idea that they are actually fighting oppression, otherwise those imaginary demons disappear. So stories of misery and suffering are profound because it keeps them grounded in this imaginary war.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I think you’re on to something here. Everyone – especially those who put storytelling and entertainment at the center of their lives – wants to be a Hero, but how many of us are actually called upon to Do Something or Risk Losing Everything? Dang few, and please G-d, I don’t want to be one of them, as there are no scripts for the real world.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I think you are part right. These folks don’t value what they have because they don’t have experience of life without it. But even those things do not give them joy so I don’t think saying they only have the simple joys is accurate.

          The closest thing they have is the adrenaline high they get out of hating and destroying. The tales of misery have no end because as you sayb it fulfils their mental gore-porn. They have no tales of overcoming flaws or hardship because to leave the mudpit is not encouraged; instead character defects are ‘virtues’ and ‘virtues’ must be thrown away.


        3. “The closest thing they have is the adrenaline high they get out of hating and destroying. The tales of misery have no end because as you sayb it fulfils their mental gore-porn. They have no tales of overcoming flaws or hardship because to leave the mudpit is not encouraged; instead character defects are ‘virtues’ and ‘virtues’ must be thrown away.”

          That’s true. Very true. I like your verbiage “mental gore-porn”. The SJW’s I have been unfortunate enough to run across howl and bemoan everyday things like supporting themselves, finding employment in the face of depression/adversity, feminism, etc., without really ever having put their ore in the water and trying to paddle. At a tender young age, many of them have not earned (IMO) the right to bitch like they do. They have not struggled to find their own way in the world, they have not worked their way to retirement, and the only way they can find to alleviate their general comfort/unease/discontent is to complain about how hard they have it and demand respect for their feelings, liberal viewpoints, and safe places. (my goodness, I’m starting to sound old 🙂

          I think (unless I’m misinterpreting it) that Nicki is elucidating on the hypocrisy of the SJW’s and how the more they push and push for equality and fairness, the more of a fool and bigot they appear.

          There’s this really remarkable example to come out of California State University recently. It appears they just provided segregated housing for their black students so they can be free from “micro-aggressions” (well done, CSU, you went full retard this time):


        4. For some reason I am reminded of a time I was in a chat with a couple of people who knew I owned (a) gun(s) [pick the parenthetical you think applies]. They simply couldn’t understand how I could dare do it. They confessed that they might snap, they were so constantly enraged by their “shitty” circumstances. (I grant that the guy in the Middle East–an atheist in a Muslim shithole–might have been justified.) I could easily imagine either one of them as an SJW even though they really weren’t. Same rage at the world in general for no real apparent reason. (Rage, if you must, against the douchebag who deserves it, not the entire world.)

          So I tend to understand it when an anti-gunner is worried about gun owners “snapping.” They’re likely thinking about their own selves, not realizing not everyone is like them.


        5. I grant that the guy in the Middle East–an atheist in a Muslim shithole–might have been justified.

          Quite by coincidence, the following arrived in my inbox about twenty minutes ago:

          Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim Terrorists are so quick to commit suicide.
          Lets have a look at the evidence:
          – No Christmas
          – No television
          – No nude women
          – No football
          – No pork chops
          – No hot dogs
          – No burgers
          – No beer
          – No bacon
          – Rags for clothes
          – Towels for hats
          – Constant wailing from some idiot in a tower
          – More than one wife
          – More than one mother in law
          – You can’t shave
          – Your wife can’t shave
          – You can’t wash off the smell of donkey
          – You cook over burning camel shit
          – Your wife is picked by someone else for you
          – and your wife smells worse than your donkey

          Then they tell you that “when you die, it all gets better”??
          Well no shit, Sherlock!….
          It’s not like it could get much worse!

          Explains a lot, doesn’t it?


    2. Heh. I used to dress goth for two reasons: The style and clothes were pretty and my mom would gleefully enable my fashion; and it was easy to set most of my clothes in an outfit that looked both cute and elegant. Thanks, elegant gosurori appeal~ I skipped over the navel gazing of emogoths though.


  8. Since this is a piece about writing…..

    A good friend and good man passed away this past week. Dr. David Lavery of Middle Tennessee State U. died of a sudden illness. He leaves behind a wife, two daughters, and three grandchildren.

    His field of study was entertainment media and pop culture. He has written books on The Sopranos, The X-Files, Deadwood, Seinfeld, and, for some reason, was a Joss Whedon super fan.

    He and I didn’t agree much on politics, but he was good enough to invite me to view the final episode of Breaking Bad in his home where we discussed the pros and cons of mass marketing “Blue Sky” candy for kids while we actually ate Blue Sky candy.

    I’m gobsmacked at his passing and just want more people to be exposed to his writings.

    As I have said before but now with a new caveat
    “question everything…..even your own mortality.”

    So, David, my friend…..thanks for that.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. “…without us, they’re nothing.”

    Those who reject reality for their own ends, will in the end be rejected by reality.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Two things terrify CHORFs above all else: being outnumbered, and becoming irrelevant. The DRAGON AWARD threatens to effect both outcomes in one stroke. The Hugo may linger on as a “prestige” item — squirreled away in the side table drawers of lonely Trufans everywhere, for those cold nights when involuntary solitude gets to be just too much to bear — but the field is already awash with “prestige” accolades of one description or another. Almost all of which are juried or selected with an eye to “educating” the reader, about what the reader ought to like. Taste-making being the first duty of all CHORFs. Problem is, the longer things go on — with the prestigious diverging from the popular — the more the audience learns to distrust the totems and markers of prestige. Because they’re tired of being let down, and ripped off.

    Now, it might rightly be said that this is simply same-as-it-ever-was, for literature. The hoi paloi have been desperately trying to uplift the readerly palates of common folk for hundreds of years. This is why our high school and college literature courses tend to be about as much fun as a toothache. They seldom, if ever, allow the curriculum to follow popular modern trends in reading. Especially in genre. In fact, genre is still a filthy word in the minds of many hoi paloi — which makes the pretend-paloi of SF/F just that much more pathetic. They desperately desire a spot at the literary grown-ups table, so they want to wreck or suffocate the very things which made SF/F awesome in the first place.

    I say, that’s a fool’s bargain.

    But what else can we expect from CHORFs?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. You put me in mind of a famous (well, famous to the likes of me, anyway) anecdote about the founder of my field, Melville Dewey. He gave the commencement address to the first graduating class of the Columbia University school of library science, and informed those worthy ladies that it would be their duty to help the public break the pernicious and destructive habit of reading novels. He expected public librarians to steer their patrons toward useful reading only – Greco-Roman literature in translation, and notable works of Christian theology (collections of the sermons of prominent pastors were especially recommended).

      Liked by 2 people

      1. That was a useful reminder. Time was, the reading of fiction — novels especially — was condemned by all major Christian sects, including my own (Catholicism). Tidbits like that serve to keep us mindful of how far beyond the words of Christ churches have routinely extended their “authority.” It also highlights the exact nature of political correctness: a religious cult.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Most true, Mr. Porretto, but not exactly the same point at which I was pointing, which was how one generation’s lazy waste of time becomes a later era’s elevated art form. In our day, we have seen the same thing happen as lowly, childish “comic books” have become ambitious, high-art “graphic novels,” reviewed on the front page of the New York Times Book Review (all of which are a footnote to Will Eisner, but that’s just me). The irony is greater, though, because some of the same novels that were a waste of time then are the novels taught in graduate seminars now.

          But your point certainly isn’t limited to churches – it’s a genuine multicultural phenomenon if there ever was one, beginning when Plato would have banished poets from the ideal republic, because they seduce the people away from Truth by telling – gasp! – stories that are more interesting. Cultural leadership has ALWAYS had a problem with entertainment. (I recommend The Anti-Theatrical Prejudice [Jonas Barish, 1981] for a survey.) Our present cultural moment does make a place for fiction, but only as it upholds certain values, many of which are patently false (not to mention depressing and dull as dirt).

          Liked by 3 people

    2. I hate to correct an author on word usage, but “hoi polloi” means the common people – the majority. I think Brad is talking about the elites, not hoi polloi, trying to use their power to elevate the taste of the commoners.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. While I have dreams of being a writer I doubt I would be successful, I’m just not wordy enough.
    I would have just said, The insecure CHORF’s are trying to run a literary “emperor’s new clothes” swindle with notable lack of success.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Being able to say it in few words is NOT a disqualifier, vonzorch! You want to get it out there quickly enough your reader isn’t bored…especially if you’re having to explain something. (Having to stop and explain something is the occupational hazard of SF/Fantasy writers, and needs to be done as painlessly as possible–better yet, find a way to not have to do it, at least not explicitly.)

      If you want to write “literature” rather than fiction, then yeah work on your long winded poeticism.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Brevity is not a crime in writing. Being boring is a crime. Lacking depth is a crime. But being concise is not.

      I can’t write “short” to save my life. The few times I have tried, the result lacks umph. It is flat, without feeling. (Not that my longer work is any better. Go figure, a woman who can’t write emotions.)

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Christopher McNeil

    This issue as with so many other Henny Penny calamities today has gravitated to such a predictable low point that my unenlightened vulgar self now turns and walks away. F*** it let Worldcon burn.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. I don’t know… I tried to read the Correia book and the writing was so bad I couldn’t get past the 6th page. If Wright is no better, then the Dragons are simply an equivalent of the Hugo clique from the other side. So far it seems just as pathetic as when Redshirts won a Hugo.


    1. Everyone’s tastes are different. A huge number of people – including myself – would disagree with your assessment of Larry’s writing. It’s fun, fast paced and entertaining. Opinions are like assholes. But if you are going to judge all his writing based on the 6 pages you’ve read, I would discount your opinion.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I do not think he has an actual point beyond “I do not like Larry Correia’s writing, and cannot fathom wht anyone else would.”

        He made a similar comment in another recent MGC post and that is pretty much it. Has shades of Clamps-like ‘I hate it and you should hate it too and I refuse to read more than the free sample and judge only on that.’

        Possible Clamps or a mimicker.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. No, not a Clamps at least.

        Some similarity in judging a whole novel by a few first pages, but not like Clamps beyond that. Sorry for being wary.


    2. Correia isn’t a literary stylist, granted, but his writing is usually straightforward and clear. John C. Wright…well, he’s what we call an acquired taste. Sometimes he lets his penchant for whimsy carry him away, as you can see from the names of a couple of the characters in “Somewhither.” But as always, “Of tastes there is nothing written” (The Talmud).

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Personally, Wright’s style isn’t what I normally like to read. That doesn’t mean he’s a bad author, given his success. Just not my type. The problem with these CHORFS is that they cannot tolerate any differing OPINIONs. They take that as a challenge to their views, and that can’t be allowed to happen!

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I am reminded of a scene from an early episode of M*A*S*H:
          Frank Burns: “Normality is everybody doing and thinking the same thing!”
          Trapper John: “But what about individuality, Frank?”
          Frank Burns: “Individuality’s fine — as long as we all do it together!”

          (That was, of course, *before* the show went hard-left.)

          Liked by 1 person

    3. Is this the only thing you have to say?


  14. I.



  15. They have no manners and they have no respect for the opinions of other people, no self-respect.


  16. […] about the puppy kickers and the SJW Howler Monkeys, whose entire goal is literally to destroy those whom they perceive to […]


%d bloggers like this: