That's stunning! So, some women are oppressing you, and it's OK to be angry at all women. Why no corresponding anger to all men? Some men support those female oppressors. It is mind-bottlingly stupid to be angry at all women because some are doing things you don't like especially as you are not angry at all men even though some are doing things you don't like. Talk about double standards.
See here's where you do that projecting thing again, where you think you're making a point about me but all you're really doing is revealing your own inner prejudice.
Why lie about it. You don't want to read my post because you don't care about the truth, only about being loyal to current prevailing feminist orthodoxy.
Aaaah you have now moved into the "blatantly making stuff up fantasy land" part of your argument. This is something you reliably resort to when you're out of arguments with a shred of sense.
This is the first time this thread you've mentioned "outright violent" behaviour of a group of feminists. Why bring it up now? It has no relevance to my argument that to almost everyone, MRAs/RedPillers/MGTOWs/PUSa are basically the same.
If by "making stuff up fantasy land" you mean "referring to things recorded live on video" then sure.
And I brought it up because you literally just accused me of exactly what you, animojo, and virtually every feminist out there does when people point out feminism's nowadays routinely outright violent and criminal attacks on anyone dissenting from the feminist party line.
You said it right here: "ah I see you're playing the game where you claim to identify with a movement but claim that every thing in that movement you don't like doesn't apply."
That's EXACTLY what you, animojo, and other feminists do. It's Schrodinger's Feminism... someone is a feminist until they're criticized, then suddenly they're "no true feminist", and then when it's your turn to respond suddenly they ARE a feminist again and that person is a misogynist woman hater for opposing them.
So you mean the some people backed Benjanun Sriduangkaew because they (in my mind inexplicably) liked her writing, but when they found out she was the alter ego of the awful person RH, they stopped? Isn't that exactly what's supposed to happen?
People backed the awful person because that's how the oppression olympics worked. The only reason they stopped backing her was because she doesn't have enough star power or usefulness to be worth fighting for. People who have enough star power or usefulness are still supported by SJWs even when they're literally rapists, just look at Amy Schumer. Or for other awful people still backed by SJWs look at Sulkowicz, Lindy West, Jessica Valenti, Mary Koss... the list goes on.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Pointing out something is provably a lie is not "rabidly screeching insults", it's not even an insult. If you want to see what "rabidly screeching insults" looks like again all you need to do is look at feminists continually inventing more and more slurs because ordinary profanity just isn't hateful enough for them. Hell just look at Animojo comically calling everything in the world "MRA", it's like how the smurfs use the word "smurf" for everything.
lolwut? MRA was a term invented MRAs to describ themselves. Neckbeard was always made by nerds for nerds. The other three insults Iv'e only ever heard from you as examples of what other people say. At this point, I'm not sure if you're genuinely delusional or trolling very ineffectively.
And used by feminists and SJWs like Animojo for example as a slur against everything in the world they dislike. Also neckbeard is not "made by nerds for nerds", it is or rather was the feminist slur for non-conforming men until they came up with pissbaby and later fuckboy... because again the previous slurs just weren't hateful enough so new ones had to be created.
THAT is "rabidly screeching insults".
No, they've reached some different conclusions, but they all stem from the same ideology. Most of what all the groups preach/bang on about is essentially mysoginistic women hating about how men are really the oppressed majority and the world owes them something (i.e. sex) and how basically it's all the fault of women or men who are like women which makes them worse than scum. They all seem to loooove absurdly simplistic evopsych "explanations" as to why this is so.
That's what I care about. The fact that the redpillers hate the PUAs because the PUAs want to leverage it to get more sex and the PUAs despise the MGTOWs because they thing they're idiots for not using their new-found knowledge to get more sex is of no iterest to me.
See what you don't realise is that this right here basically proves my point for me. You're projecting your own sexism, prejudice, and hatred onto another group. You utterly dehumanize and objectify MRAs as walking penises with no thought or emotion beyond a mindless insatiable hunger for sex because that's how you see them, and men in general.
You're like a white supremacist raving about how jews and blacks are sub-human and evil. You're not proving how evil and bad MRAs are, you're proving how hateful and prejudiced YOU are.
MRAs want feminists to stop erasing 50% of rape and abuse victims for their own profit and self-aggrandizement. They want feminists to stop bankrupting and stonewalling men's shelters and research into men's problems. They want feminists to stop committing felonies to shut down (or try to shut down) every attempt at dealing with or talking about men's problems. They want feminists to stop acting like men have no emotions, no thoughts, no feelings, no humanity beyond a mindless insatiable sex drive... particularly since feminists have recently escalated that rhetoric to the point of playing off of centuries old racialized prejudices against black men.
And yeah they want feminists to stop conflating them with PUAs/Redpillers as a deliberate lie to plaster over all of that and perpetuate witchhunts.
You can believe that if it makes you happy. Meanwhile one bunch of MRA neckbeard fuckboy pissbsby shitlords [sic] ranting about how bad women are are pretty much indistinguishable from the next bunch as far as anyone outside cares. Basically they all get lumped into the "women hating losers with massive entitlement complexes" category. Why would I or anyone else bother sorting them more finely than that? Not worth my time.
Your analogy is all fine and good except you're ignoring that the MRAs are not in fact advocating for men's rights (like e.g. Fathers 4 Justice which seems fine to me). Out of interest have you ever looke
Yes, literally. You're literally stooping to the level of attempting to make an ad hominem out of straw manning my emotional state. That's exactly the same thing as the age old "hysterical emotionally distraught wimminz" argument, just retooled to be used against men according to modern day stereotypes and prejudices. It's so old and overused it's been color coded and filed with the others.
By that logic all feminists are the minions of rapists like Amy Schumer, attempted murderers like Valerie Solanas, and people who advocate mass murdering men until they're only 10% of the human population like professor Mary Daly.
The difference is Amy Schumer won an award, Valerie Solanas still has her work taught and spread as an important work of feminist literature, and Mary Daly was a widely respected feminist professor who quit in anger at being forced to teach male as well as female students.
Vox Day is just another writer who wants to the same things and started his own group that have some overlapping goals with another group, neither of which I'm even a member of.
Even if you claim that is not the case - like Correia, Torgersen etc did - your actions, and, most importantly, their results, have shown otherwise.
Funny I could say the same thing about feminism. Especially given that literally every attempt at even disagreeing with, let alone criticising feminism has been either significantly disrupted by or outright shutdown by threats and at times actual criminal attacks and violence.
I could easily point out that despite all the insistence that "feminism is about equality" and "feminism helps men too" the actions of feminists in doing things like sending knives, syringes, and dead animals to people who criticize them, continuing to support people that deny men can even BE raped by women like Mary koss, and doing everything in their power to erase and silence male (and female) victims of female rapists and abusers virtually universally prove otherwise.
Mary Koss, Lindy West, Jessica Valenti, and even Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham are all horrible people but they've got enough star power and usefulness that SJWs don't have to drop them. SJWs didn't give a fuck that she was a horrible person, Amy Schumer's a fucking rapist and they gave her an award, they only dumped her because they were forced to.
And now we've reached the point where you literally resort to the age old "hysterical emotionally distraught wimminz" argument retooled to be used against men.
Rabidly screeching insults when someone disagrees doesn't actually support your argument.
Pointing out something is a patent and provable lie is not "rabidly screeching insults". Screaming "MRA neckbeard fuckboy pissbaby shitlord", most of which your movement made up purely because regular profanities simply weren't hateful enough for them, at anyone who ever criticizes your criminal hate movement is rabidly screeching insults.
If you replace the two reformed baptist churches with, say MRA and RedPill respectively, that is pretty much how it looks to anyone outside the "movement". IOW they are peddling the exact same type of toxic crap, but for some inexplicable[*] reason they've separated into factions which *loathe* each other based on some almost insignificant ideological difference.
Again, that's complete bullshit. What you're saying is as facially absurd as claiming that Judaism and Shintoism are indistinguishable and have only "insignifcant ideological differences". They're diametrically opposes groups that are utterly different in virtually every possible way save they both oppose feminism, which is ironic because it's feminism that has far more in common with redpillers than MRAs.
The reason "anyone outside" can't tell the difference is because feminists like you constantly lie through their teeth, going so far as to publish article after article linking to redpill websites and CLAIMING they're the MRM while doing everything possible to avoid ever actually linking to R/mensrights. It's a deliberate lie and I'm not going to pretend that it's not.
You want a church metaphor? Here's a better one:
During the Middle Ages in Western Europe, Christianity was 100% synonymous with the Catholic Church. Although a variety of doctrinal variations emerged over the centuries, the Catholic Church asserted an absolute monopoly over how Christians established a relationship with God. The Roman Pope even eventually claimed authority over the Orthodox churches of the East. Among the secular population, it was taken for granted that the only way to be a good, pious Christian was to be a good Catholic, and follow unquestioningly the dictates of the clergy. To even hint that a person could be a good Christian without following the Church was at some times a crime punishable by death.
One of the results of this doctrinal monopoly was a slow descent into corruption, including the sale of Church offices and opportunities to ‘buy’ your way into Heaven. An associated trend was a decline in intellectual rigor, scholarship and reasoning.
Finally, somebody got fed up. A theologian named Martin Luther, basing his reasoning on good scholarship and careful reasoning, rejected the notion that a person could establish their relationship with God only through the Catholic Church. Luther and Protestant theologians advanced the novel idea that people could establish a closer relationship with God and the teachings of Jesus through direct examination of both the New Testament and their own conscience.
Although taken for granted by most contemporary people, it was appallingly heretical by the Catholic hierarchy when it first emerged. They had no way of fitting it into their worldview. It challenged the Church’s monopoly over Christian thought. The idea that a person could find their own relationship with the Almighty without the intervention of clergy was anathema. In response they branded Protestants as heretics, Satan-worshippers, etc. – as it was the only way they could fit Protestantism within their limited worldview. They were psychologically incapable of of seeing the good points of this argument or understanding that a person could be both a good Christian and a non-Catholic....
This seems to be extremely threatening on an intellectual level to some (not al
Aah I see you're playing the game where you claim to identify with a movement but claim that every thing in that movement you don't like doesn't apply.
I'm not a Sad or a Rabid puppy, both of which are seperate groups with somewhat overlapping goals. What's really interesting is how you just described exactly what you, animojo, and other feminists do whenever someone points out the outright violent and criminal conduct of large groups of feminists towards people criticising (let alone opposing) feminism.
I though the SJWs rigged the Hugos? Make up your mind, because if the SJWs backed RH, they also hate RH. After all, the SJW Hugo voters also voted to award the person who outed RH as total scum.
If you're going to use SJW you should try to use the term with a modicum of consistency. Not that anyone else does.
it's astounding how you can take disingenuity to such extraordinary levels with a straight face. One of the key points made when outing RH was how SJWs backed her as a golden child until they were finally forced to stop backing her because she didn't have the star power of more important toxic personalities like Lindy West or Jessica Valenti, or the usefulness of people like Mary Koss.
It's not inconsistent at all to point out that they backed RH (until called on it and forced to stop) and are rigging the Hugos for ideological purity.
Very clever, how you tried to pin all this on Vox and the Rabid puppies who actually think the Hugo should just be tossed as opposed to the Sad puppies who actually proved that it was the awarding being manipulated.
There was a voting bloc, and they even had special "awards" ready for the people they had preselected to win before the puppies disrupted their rigging attempts.
"Vox Minion". Gotta love that doublethink... SJWs are never reflected on by the people they explicitly support, people SJWs hate are always minions of whoever you hate most regardless of what's really going on. Repeat after me: "I am not Vox Day"
The only stacking after the puppies got on the ballet was the SJWs stacking on No Award then handing out special "awards" to everyone they had originally preselected to win before their plans were disrupted.
Let's see... a toxic troll who disproportionately victimized women and minorities and was for a time the golden child of SJWs until they were forced to drop her due to the sheer weight of evidence against them and the lack of enough critical mass to insulate her like Lindy West or others have...
Yeah totally irrelevant. Except for the fact it's directly representative of exactly the kind of people that have taken over the hugos.
There was gaming, but it wasn't the nominations. It was the award itself. Which explains why the SJWs even had special alternate trophies ready and waiting for the people originally preselected to win.
Scalzi explained exactly how to rig voting, which is exactly what happened, and then the SJWs even handed out alternate "awards" to the authors they had originally wanted to rig the Hugos for.
Suuuure they weren't. It totally has nothing to do with the absolutely rabid politicization of the awards, or the fact that they were so rigged that the SJWs even had special trophies to give to the people they had originally selected to win.
Except the entire thing was predicted well in advance, everyone on the SJW slate was given an "alternate" award, and the SJWs were quite willing to discuss just how much they personally hated the puppies and everyone connected to them or even liked by them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's stunning! So, some women are oppressing you, and it's OK to be angry at all women. Why no corresponding anger to all men? Some men support those female oppressors. It is mind-bottlingly stupid to be angry at all women because some are doing things you don't like especially as you are not angry at all men even though some are doing things you don't like. Talk about double standards.
See here's where you do that projecting thing again, where you think you're making a point about me but all you're really doing is revealing your own inner prejudice.
Why lie about it. You don't want to read my post because you don't care about the truth, only about being loyal to current prevailing feminist orthodoxy.
Aaaah you have now moved into the "blatantly making stuff up fantasy land" part of your argument. This is something you reliably resort to when you're out of arguments with a shred of sense.
This is the first time this thread you've mentioned "outright violent" behaviour of a group of feminists. Why bring it up now? It has no relevance to my argument that to almost everyone, MRAs/RedPillers/MGTOWs/PUSa are basically the same.
If by "making stuff up fantasy land" you mean "referring to things recorded live on video" then sure.
And I brought it up because you literally just accused me of exactly what you, animojo, and virtually every feminist out there does when people point out feminism's nowadays routinely outright violent and criminal attacks on anyone dissenting from the feminist party line.
You said it right here: "ah I see you're playing the game where you claim to identify with a movement but claim that every thing in that movement you don't like doesn't apply."
That's EXACTLY what you, animojo, and other feminists do. It's Schrodinger's Feminism... someone is a feminist until they're criticized, then suddenly they're "no true feminist", and then when it's your turn to respond suddenly they ARE a feminist again and that person is a misogynist woman hater for opposing them.
So you mean the some people backed Benjanun Sriduangkaew because they (in my mind inexplicably) liked her writing, but when they found out she was the alter ego of the awful person RH, they stopped? Isn't that exactly what's supposed to happen?
People backed the awful person because that's how the oppression olympics worked. The only reason they stopped backing her was because she doesn't have enough star power or usefulness to be worth fighting for. People who have enough star power or usefulness are still supported by SJWs even when they're literally rapists, just look at Amy Schumer. Or for other awful people still backed by SJWs look at Sulkowicz, Lindy West, Jessica Valenti, Mary Koss... the list goes on.
No but rabidly screeching insults is.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Pointing out something is provably a lie is not "rabidly screeching insults", it's not even an insult. If you want to see what "rabidly screeching insults" looks like again all you need to do is look at feminists continually inventing more and more slurs because ordinary profanity just isn't hateful enough for them. Hell just look at Animojo comically calling everything in the world "MRA", it's like how the smurfs use the word "smurf" for everything.
lolwut? MRA was a term invented MRAs to describ themselves. Neckbeard was always made by nerds for nerds. The other three insults Iv'e only ever heard from you as examples of what other people say. At this point, I'm not sure if you're genuinely delusional or trolling very ineffectively.
And used by feminists and SJWs like Animojo for example as a slur against everything in the world they dislike. Also neckbeard is not "made by nerds for nerds", it is or rather was the feminist slur for non-conforming men until they came up with pissbaby and later fuckboy... because again the previous slurs just weren't hateful enough so new ones had to be created.
THAT is "rabidly screeching insults".
No, they've reached some different conclusions, but they all stem from the same ideology. Most of what all the groups preach/bang on about is essentially mysoginistic women hating about how men are really the oppressed majority and the world owes them something (i.e. sex) and how basically it's all the fault of women or men who are like women which makes them worse than scum. They all seem to loooove absurdly simplistic evopsych "explanations" as to why this is so.
That's what I care about. The fact that the redpillers hate the PUAs because the PUAs want to leverage it to get more sex and the PUAs despise the MGTOWs because they thing they're idiots for not using their new-found knowledge to get more sex is of no iterest to me.
See what you don't realise is that this right here basically proves my point for me. You're projecting your own sexism, prejudice, and hatred onto another group. You utterly dehumanize and objectify MRAs as walking penises with no thought or emotion beyond a mindless insatiable hunger for sex because that's how you see them, and men in general.
You're like a white supremacist raving about how jews and blacks are sub-human and evil. You're not proving how evil and bad MRAs are, you're proving how hateful and prejudiced YOU are.
MRAs want feminists to stop erasing 50% of rape and abuse victims for their own profit and self-aggrandizement. They want feminists to stop bankrupting and stonewalling men's shelters and research into men's problems. They want feminists to stop committing felonies to shut down (or try to shut down) every attempt at dealing with or talking about men's problems. They want feminists to stop acting like men have no emotions, no thoughts, no feelings, no humanity beyond a mindless insatiable sex drive... particularly since feminists have recently escalated that rhetoric to the point of playing off of centuries old racialized prejudices against black men.
And yeah they want feminists to stop conflating them with PUAs/Redpillers as a deliberate lie to plaster over all of that and perpetuate witchhunts.
You can believe that if it makes you happy. Meanwhile one bunch of MRA neckbeard fuckboy pissbsby shitlords [sic] ranting about how bad women are are pretty much indistinguishable from the next bunch as far as anyone outside cares. Basically they all get lumped into the "women hating losers with massive entitlement complexes" category. Why would I or anyone else bother sorting them more finely than that? Not worth my time.
Your analogy is all fine and good except you're ignoring that the MRAs are not in fact advocating for men's rights (like e.g. Fathers 4 Justice which seems fine to me). Out of interest have you ever looke
Yes, literally. You're literally stooping to the level of attempting to make an ad hominem out of straw manning my emotional state. That's exactly the same thing as the age old "hysterical emotionally distraught wimminz" argument, just retooled to be used against men according to modern day stereotypes and prejudices. It's so old and overused it's been color coded and filed with the others.
I answered your question plainly and directly, now you're trolling.
By that logic all feminists are the minions of rapists like Amy Schumer, attempted murderers like Valerie Solanas, and people who advocate mass murdering men until they're only 10% of the human population like professor Mary Daly.
The difference is Amy Schumer won an award, Valerie Solanas still has her work taught and spread as an important work of feminist literature, and Mary Daly was a widely respected feminist professor who quit in anger at being forced to teach male as well as female students.
Vox Day is just another writer who wants to the same things and started his own group that have some overlapping goals with another group, neither of which I'm even a member of.
Even if you claim that is not the case - like Correia, Torgersen etc did - your actions, and, most importantly, their results, have shown otherwise.
Funny I could say the same thing about feminism. Especially given that literally every attempt at even disagreeing with, let alone criticising feminism has been either significantly disrupted by or outright shutdown by threats and at times actual criminal attacks and violence.
I could easily point out that despite all the insistence that "feminism is about equality" and "feminism helps men too" the actions of feminists in doing things like sending knives, syringes, and dead animals to people who criticize them, continuing to support people that deny men can even BE raped by women like Mary koss, and doing everything in their power to erase and silence male (and female) victims of female rapists and abusers virtually universally prove otherwise.
Mary Koss, Lindy West, Jessica Valenti, and even Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham are all horrible people but they've got enough star power and usefulness that SJWs don't have to drop them. SJWs didn't give a fuck that she was a horrible person, Amy Schumer's a fucking rapist and they gave her an award, they only dumped her because they were forced to.
And now we've reached the point where you literally resort to the age old "hysterical emotionally distraught wimminz" argument retooled to be used against men.
Rabidly screeching insults when someone disagrees doesn't actually support your argument.
Pointing out something is a patent and provable lie is not "rabidly screeching insults". Screaming "MRA neckbeard fuckboy pissbaby shitlord", most of which your movement made up purely because regular profanities simply weren't hateful enough for them, at anyone who ever criticizes your criminal hate movement is rabidly screeching insults.
If you replace the two reformed baptist churches with, say MRA and RedPill respectively, that is pretty much how it looks to anyone outside the "movement". IOW they are peddling the exact same type of toxic crap, but for some inexplicable[*] reason they've separated into factions which *loathe* each other based on some almost insignificant ideological difference.
Again, that's complete bullshit. What you're saying is as facially absurd as claiming that Judaism and Shintoism are indistinguishable and have only "insignifcant ideological differences". They're diametrically opposes groups that are utterly different in virtually every possible way save they both oppose feminism, which is ironic because it's feminism that has far more in common with redpillers than MRAs.
The reason "anyone outside" can't tell the difference is because feminists like you constantly lie through their teeth, going so far as to publish article after article linking to redpill websites and CLAIMING they're the MRM while doing everything possible to avoid ever actually linking to R/mensrights. It's a deliberate lie and I'm not going to pretend that it's not.
You want a church metaphor? Here's a better one:
During the Middle Ages in Western Europe, Christianity was 100% synonymous with the Catholic Church. Although a variety of doctrinal variations emerged over the centuries, the Catholic Church asserted an absolute monopoly over how Christians established a relationship with God. The Roman Pope even eventually claimed authority over the Orthodox churches of the East. Among the secular population, it was taken for granted that the only way to be a good, pious Christian was to be a good Catholic, and follow unquestioningly the dictates of the clergy. To even hint that a person could be a good Christian without following the Church was at some times a crime punishable by death.
One of the results of this doctrinal monopoly was a slow descent into corruption, including the sale of Church offices and opportunities to ‘buy’ your way into Heaven. An associated trend was a decline in intellectual rigor, scholarship and reasoning.
Finally, somebody got fed up. A theologian named Martin Luther, basing his reasoning on good scholarship and careful reasoning, rejected the notion that a person could establish their relationship with God only through the Catholic Church. Luther and Protestant theologians advanced the novel idea that people could establish a closer relationship with God and the teachings of Jesus through direct examination of both the New Testament and their own conscience.
Although taken for granted by most contemporary people, it was appallingly heretical by the Catholic hierarchy when it first emerged. They had no way of fitting it into their worldview. It challenged the Church’s monopoly over Christian thought. The idea that a person could find their own relationship with the Almighty without the intervention of clergy was anathema. In response they branded Protestants as heretics, Satan-worshippers, etc. – as it was the only way they could fit Protestantism within their limited worldview. They were psychologically incapable of of seeing the good points of this argument or understanding that a person could be both a good Christian and a non-Catholic....
This seems to be extremely threatening on an intellectual level to some (not al
Aah I see you're playing the game where you claim to identify with a movement but claim that every thing in that movement you don't like doesn't apply.
I'm not a Sad or a Rabid puppy, both of which are seperate groups with somewhat overlapping goals. What's really interesting is how you just described exactly what you, animojo, and other feminists do whenever someone points out the outright violent and criminal conduct of large groups of feminists towards people criticising (let alone opposing) feminism.
I though the SJWs rigged the Hugos? Make up your mind, because if the SJWs backed RH, they also hate RH. After all, the SJW Hugo voters also voted to award the person who outed RH as total scum.
If you're going to use SJW you should try to use the term with a modicum of consistency. Not that anyone else does.
it's astounding how you can take disingenuity to such extraordinary levels with a straight face. One of the key points made when outing RH was how SJWs backed her as a golden child until they were finally forced to stop backing her because she didn't have the star power of more important toxic personalities like Lindy West or Jessica Valenti, or the usefulness of people like Mary Koss.
It's not inconsistent at all to point out that they backed RH (until called on it and forced to stop) and are rigging the Hugos for ideological purity.
Very clever, how you tried to pin all this on Vox and the Rabid puppies who actually think the Hugo should just be tossed as opposed to the Sad puppies who actually proved that it was the awarding being manipulated.
Only if you're like AniMojo and use "MRA" as a generic hate-word for every single thing you don't like no matter what it is.
There was a voting bloc, and they even had special "awards" ready for the people they had preselected to win before the puppies disrupted their rigging attempts.
Repeat after me: "I am not Vox Day".
Also you might notice SJWs are the people who backed such wonderful individuals as RequiresHate.
"Vox Minion". Gotta love that doublethink... SJWs are never reflected on by the people they explicitly support, people SJWs hate are always minions of whoever you hate most regardless of what's really going on. Repeat after me: "I am not Vox Day"
The only stacking after the puppies got on the ballet was the SJWs stacking on No Award then handing out special "awards" to everyone they had originally preselected to win before their plans were disrupted.
Let's see... a toxic troll who disproportionately victimized women and minorities and was for a time the golden child of SJWs until they were forced to drop her due to the sheer weight of evidence against them and the lack of enough critical mass to insulate her like Lindy West or others have...
Yeah totally irrelevant. Except for the fact it's directly representative of exactly the kind of people that have taken over the hugos.
By your logic black people are "white" to non-racists.
There was gaming, but it wasn't the nominations. It was the award itself. Which explains why the SJWs even had special alternate trophies ready and waiting for the people originally preselected to win.
Scalzi explained exactly how to rig voting, which is exactly what happened, and then the SJWs even handed out alternate "awards" to the authors they had originally wanted to rig the Hugos for.
Suuuure they weren't. It totally has nothing to do with the absolutely rabid politicization of the awards, or the fact that they were so rigged that the SJWs even had special trophies to give to the people they had originally selected to win.
Which tends to be what happens when a clique of people concentrate their votes to rig a bunch of "No Awards" instead of spreading them out.
Riiiight, and that's why Jim Butcher and Kevin J. Anderson were No Awarded as well.
Except the entire thing was predicted well in advance, everyone on the SJW slate was given an "alternate" award, and the SJWs were quite willing to discuss just how much they personally hated the puppies and everyone connected to them or even liked by them.
A hell of a lot more diverse than people who will spite even the women they claim to support just because someone else likes their work too.