The state of the Tor boycott (and SJW’s)

I guess it’s time to post an update on what’s been happening with regard to the Tor boycott.

I had the opportunity to discuss the situation at considerable length with a large number of people at LibertyCon over the weekend.  (I was humbled by the number who thanked me for speaking up about the situation at Tor.  It’s nice to know I’m far from alone in my anger.)  It seems there’s very positive support for the boycott from the majority of those with whom I spoke.  I’d say it’s certain that we’re on track to cost Tor a six-figure sum this year, and probably that will continue for the foreseeable future.  That may not seem like a lot to some;  but six figures a year taken off Tor’s turnover, merely because they would not apologize for actions taken in their name by their personnel using company time and computer facilities, seems like a fitting punishment.  I wonder whether the company will still be as sanguine about it when the loss of turnover reaches seven figures?

SJW’s continue to be as fanatical as ever in trying to brand various Puppy factions as racist, extremist, and any other -ist they can think of.  They’re still trying to identify ‘leaders’ of the Sad Puppy faction and draw them out, so that they can demonize them as individuals.  Unfortunately for them, there are no particular SP leaders behind the boycott.  It’s a genuine mass movement.  (A few of them have tried to demonize me in that way, but it hasn’t worked, for two reasons.  One is that they’ve already dismissed me – rudely – as a nobody, not worthy of their attention . . . which makes it difficult for them to build me up into some kind of a bogeyman.  The other is that I truly am small fry, as I’ve pointed out before.  I’m merely an individual who, because of my personal background and history, was more offended than many others by Irene Gallo’s intemperate and untrue remarks;  and I therefore spoke out, loudly, about the situation.  Others have chosen to pick up that ball and run with it.)

The SJW’s also appear to be trying to conflate the Tor boycott with the Hugo Awards controversy.  Please recall that I didn’t call for a boycott of Tor because of anything to do with the Hugo Awards.  I did so because of the lies and unconscionable actions of a number of senior Tor staff.  It looks to me as if the loony left is grasping at straws here.  Vox Day, who as organizer of the Rabid Puppies is the SJW’s favorite demon, has done a great job cataloging their manic efforts to further polarize and inflame the situation.  I know that some people regard him as all sorts of nasty things because of various incidents in the past, but I don’t know anything about those.  I’ve only had dealings with him since this situation blew up.  In that context, I have nothing but praise for his openness, honesty and willingness to co-operate.

Just this morning Vox pointed out how SJW hysteria has reached a crescendo.  Go read his article for yourself.  You’ll find it illuminating.  He also references Daniel Greenfield’s latest article, which is most certainly applicable to a great many SJW’s.  Read that too.

The very fact that the Puppies factions don’t see any need to go on and on and on about the Hugos or the Tor boycott, whereas the SJW’s seem unwilling or unable to talk about much else, is (IMHO) the clearest possible sign of who’s currently winning this fight.



  1. The situation with SP, RP and the boycott is very similar to what happened with the (ongoing) Gamer Gate incident, something I think is no coincidence. Luckily all the anti-GG tactics have proved near totally ineffective and are bringing more and more people who would have otherwise remained silent to speak out.

    If the parallels to GG hold true you've got a long fight ahead of you, but the people who tend to vote with their wallets will be on your side.

  2. Greenfield's article is the truth. SJW's are the brownshirts of the 'progressive' left; in fact the progressive left is fascism in every since of the word.

  3. "I'd say it's certain that we're on track to cost Tor a six-figure sum this year, and probably that will continue for the foreseeable future."

    Could you share the calculation behind this estimate?

  4. Migly;

    If he's talking gross sales and not net, the calculation is simple:
    X people not buying Y books for an average price of Z.

    Lets say that, the boycotters normally buy…. 10 Tor books each, 3 HC, 7 PB (or ebook equivalents). That's about what, $130 in gross sales by Amazon prices? 800 people boycotting * 130 =104,000.

    If the average price or the average number of books is smaller, you need more people, mind you.

    1. Well, first off, you'd need to cut those prices by 30% or more, because Tor sells the books wholesale to retailers who mark it up to SRP. Retailers would be taking that hit, but it's spread among all retailers.

      But more importantly, where is Peter getting a figure of 800 boycotters who spent $130 per year on Tor books pre-boycott? The number of people willing to send an email, thr absolute minumum in time and effort, topped out at 765. And many of those admitted they didn't like or buy Tor books. I'd say you can half that number, probably even quarter it. Then take another 30% off for the wholesale discount. So it's probably hitting Tor to the tune of $20,000 a year.

  5. i am among those boycotting, but I did not send any emails. One of the silent types. yes, I bought Tor, but now I'm not. $130 a year is high, but I think there are lots like me, who are not buying anything. Every dollar will add up in the end.

  6. A point, John Seavey. It has been my experience that the loudest are usually not alone and there are far more people who are willing to talk simply with their money than put their name on anything. The ones willing to send an e-mail are bolder than the ones likely to go 'you know? Tor's not worth my time.' The latter group exposes themselves to nothing. They risk nothing. They just find other things to read. I think we are likely to see MORE people avoiding buying Tor products than writing e-mails. "I don't like that, I'll go somewhere else." is one of the most dangerous things to any business's bottom line.

  7. *nod* I don't normally look at the publisher of a book as much as I do the author, but I've started.

    I don't argue with stores that put up "no guns allowed" signs, I just comply and stop giving them my money. I used to fight racist skins in my youth. I won't take being called a Nazi lightly, and continue to give my money to anyone who does, either.

  8. I'm sorta participating in the boycott (sorta because I didn't buy many TOR books over the last couple years) but I didn't sign any petition. I'd rather not put my name out there for the SJWs to attack personally especially since my employer is in the middle of SJW-central.

    Unlike SJWs where putting their name on something rarely brings any personal or professional risk and who love signing petitions to get their self-righteousness fix, the number of silent people on our side who do run significant professional and personal risks by putting their name on anything is going to outnumber those who are willing to run those risks or due to their employment and personal situations don't actually run any risks.

  9. @John Seavey: Those figures are not mine, but another commenters. My figures, based on actual e-mails and many conversations, plus discussions with others involved, are considerably higher in terms of the number of individuals involved. The amount they used to spend on Tor books ranges from $10-$20 per year all the way to a couple of hundred dollars.

    Multiply your guesstimate of $20K by at least seven, and you'll get close to what I consider to be the current impact of the boycott. The word is still being spread by supporters, and more people are joining it. I wouldn't be surprised to see the financial impact rather higher by the end of the year. Time will tell.

  10. Yep, ain't signed anything or sent anything, buuut my last trip to B&N I spent right at $23.00+ and I checked to be certain none of that was going to Tor. And that's probably my monthly average at B&N.

  11. They're still trying to identify 'leaders' of the Sad Puppy faction and draw them out, so that they can demonize them as individuals.

    Straight out of Alinsky. When you read their manual of evil and compare it to their tactics, they become sadly predictable.

  12. In politics/civic affairs, the yardstick was each letter was equal to 100 people who didn't send one, but agreed. That was pre-email days, and I've no idea how it goes today, but suspect it is similar.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *