The nomination votes weren't "stacked", the award votes were. The accusations of the puppies rigging anything are patentnonsense. Meanwhile on the other hand the SJWs even had alternate awards premade for their predetermined "winners".
If yo've been following any of this, it's quite clear Vox Day and his ilk espouse much the same in the way of toxic views as the MRA/RedPill/MGTOW/etc crowd. MRA is as convenient a label as any since they all behave in more or less identical ways.
Only if you're a complete liar who needs to delegitimize one of those because they threaten the monopoly your toxic hate movement has on all discourse, funding, and even morality itself. MRAs are diametrically opposed to Redpillers on virtually everything except that they both have a problem with feminists. Redpillers, like feminists, judge men solely based on their success with women. To a feminist a man's worth is judged by how loyal of a kapo he is, to a redpiller it's how much sex he has. Both use being unsuccessful with (or unattractive to) women as their ultimate insult. Feminists use the slur "neckbeard", which draws on racialized caricatures and repurposes them. Redpillers use the insult "beta".
But a big part of it is the rabid puppies are in fact a bunch of raving mysoginists who hate anyone who is't a straight, whte, Chriatian male. Their fearless leader (Vox Day) holds those views loudly and proudly. He's never tried to deny it and frequently makes such comments. See here for his own views in his own words on homosexuality for example:
I'm not Vox Day. Vox Day also agreeing the Hugos are rigged by a toxic clique of social justice pretenders is about as relevant to the point as Hitler passing animal cruelty legislation is to my volunteering with a shelter.
And if you really think this is still the case, then explain why the blogger who outed RH and documented her awfulness got a Hugo for her efforts.
The real question is why it took that much to finally get SJWs to stop supporting this person in the frist place.
MRAs were never what you claimed them to be in the first place. Then again you claim them to be literally everything under the sun to the point you've outdone the "thanks obama" meme in breadth and variety of things blamed on MRAs.
As for ad-hominem attacks that's pretty rich coming from someone whose posting history consists almost solely of attacking people as misogynists, MRAs, misogynist MRAs, or some other synonym.
I suggest you look up the definition of ad-hominem by the way. Pointing out that you're defending people who are actively hostile to the women and minorities you claim to care about isn't ad hominem, it's pointing out that your claims of a moral high ground are bullshit.
It's almost as if that's not the issue at all, and female/LGBT/non-white authors are in fact regularly celebrated and embraced... when they're not being terrorized by SJW trolls. It's almost as if all that talk of "equality" and "diversity" from SJWs is provably just a smokescreen for toxic bigotry and a violent hatred of dissent.
Meanwhile in the real world it's women like Toni Weisskopf getting No Awarded because she was "contaminated" by thought criminals liking her work. You do realise it's facially absurd for you to say things like this when SJW's worst victims usually ARE women and minorities, right?
SJWs are toxic, demand everyone join their crusade or be put to the sword, and in the real world often resort to threats of violence and even actual crimes to silence dissent. If anyone is like the Taliban it's the sex-negative woman-hating racists who resort to bomb and death threats against people that disagree with them... you know, SJWs.
And the reason for an unprecedented number of "No Awards" to be given out was....? Say it with me: Because of a clique dominating the Hugos voting out anyone they dislike.
Yes, it's a lie, and your attempt to claim otherwise neither matches reality or matches the summary's headline, and barely addresses the major lies in the summary.
The headline claims that fans votes were ignored. That's a lie. The fans rejected the Puppy's works. The entities running the Hugos did not override the vote, ignore them, or in any other way replace a legitimate vote with a "No award".
It's not a lie in the slightest. The clique dominating the Hugos refused to allow any awards to be given to anyone tainted by crimethink.
The summary claims that the controversy over the selection had to do with "a group of (fans)" wanting to promote "hard science fiction". That's a lie. It had to do with two groups, one of which wanted to promote right wing works, the other of which wanted to prevent works it perceived as left wing from being voted upon, both of which using slates of "ideologically sound" works to squeeze out other works from the final ballots.
You forgot "reactionary", "MRA", and "antifeminist" with your partisan straw man.
Even when the summary tells the truth, its worded in such a way to imply conspiracy where there is none: The summary the bizarre statement "The question was left: would the final voters of the Hugo awards accept these nominees, or just take their ball home and refuse to give out anyway awards at all?" as if to imply that there was something wrong with voters on the Hugos, which is open to everyone who pays the small membership fee involved, being offended by a blatant attempt to rig the Hugos.
It's not bizarre at all. The entire point was whether the toxic clique rigging the Hugos would award nominees from outside their clique or if they would take the unprecedented step of handing out more No Awards in a single event than in almost the history of the award.
The blatant rigging was from the people who've been pushing ideology to the point they'll No Award a female author just because people they dislike happened to like her.
I don't recall, in the history of Slashdot, seeing such a blatant attempt by political ideologues to lie about an event they were a part of.
You must not browse slashdot very much then because the editors have made a habit of doing that every week. We call it "feminist friday".
And to the Puppies here claiming that somehow they "won": no, you didn't. You didn't "prove anything" beyond the fact that those who care about the Hugos hate it - absolutely hate it - when you try to rig their awards. If the so-called "SJWs" tried to pull the same stunt, the same thing would have happened. You know it.
The puppies didn't rig anything, they proved that the hugos WERE rigged in the first place.
What a lovely straw man you've created. The SJW vote was clearly along a slate and clearly ideologically based. It was predicted well in advance and hostile to anyone, especially women and minorities, that dared commit crimethink.
It's not a lie in the slightest. SJWs stacked their vote to "No Award" anyone, especially women (like Toni Weisskopf) and minorities, tainted by crimethink and in the process handed out more No Awards in one year than in almost the entire history of the Hugos. These are the same people who had no issue supporting vicious trolls like RequiresHate for a long time.
Toni Weisskopf was No Awarded for being contaminated by crimethink. Meanwhile SJWs had no problem for years with supporting RequiresHate, a vicious troll who overwhelmingly targeted women and non-whites for her self-aggrandizing hate campaigns.
Sorry were you offended it wasn't a Feminist Friday article sourced from Jezebel about how another $70,000 needs to be spent to tell men they're sitting wrong on the subway?
If it's flamebait you want you're looking at the wrong side of this.
More No Awards were handed out in a single hugo, as predicted months in advance, than in almost the entire history of the award. And every category that was No Awarded was a direct shot at an author tainted by "crimethink" even if they were a woman.
Except that's exactly what did happen, and was predicted months in advance. SJWs dogpiled "no award" rather than allow anyone, especially women and minorities, tainted by "crimethink" to win a hugo.
What's particularly interesting is how often those ideologues are some combination of rich, white, and often even male and how often their victims are none of the three.
First off the word "reactionary" doesn't mean anything the way you're using it, it's purely a scare-word. Everything is a "reaction" to something.
Second if you want to talk aboutdiversity you're supporting the wrongpeople. You don't get to side with (mostly rich, white, often male) people who call women "nouse ni**ers", mail people knives, syringes, and dead animals, make credible bomb threats that force multiple evacuations, and overwhelmingly target women and minorities for outright criminal abuse and claim to be supporting "diveristy".
And when it comes to scifi you're on even worse ground considering the actions of people like RequiresHate.
It makes perfect sense. The puppies spread their votes among authors they liked while SJWs, enraged at women like Toni Weisskopf being nominated after they were tainted by crimethink, concentrated their votes on "No Award". Had someone like Benjanun "Requires Hate" been on the ballot they would have voted for her by a landslide instead.
Except it's completely the opposite. The puppies scattered their votes between who they thought most deserved an award. The SJWs concentrated their votes on "No Award" to landslide out anyone, especially women or non-whites, who was tainted by crimethink.
If there was no voting bloc then women like Toni Weisskopf would have won a hugo award rather than get No Awarded purely because they were tainted by crimethink.
Yeah because Toni Weisskopf is totally a white male, much better to side with people like Benjanun who go out of their way to attack and abuse women and minorities for their own self-aggrandizement.
Do you honestly think anyone other than poperatzo and a few other SJWs here on/. still buy your "it's about equality!" whitewashing when you prove, time and again, that you will side with the most vile and toxic of abusers purely because they're SJWs who claim the banner of Feminism?
MRAs literally had absolutely nothing to do with this, it was a reaction to the hugos becoming a cliquish groupthink approved voting slate that rewarded toxic bigots like Requires Hate while ostracizing people like Toni Weisskopf for their crimethink... or even purely because crimethinkers liked them.
Congratulations AniMojo, once again you've proven unequivocably that you don't give a flying fuck about women or equality and only use that line as a cover for siding with toxic bigots who disproportionately target women and minorities.
Jews aren't "white", there was this little kerfuffle about it about 70 years ago. We might not always have dark skin but we're not "white" and have never been "white". Anyone insisting Jews are "white" needs to get a goddamn time machine and go tell it to the people who've been enslaving, slaughtering, and persecuting us for the last 4000 or so years.
Slashdot Mirror
The nomination votes weren't "stacked", the award votes were. The accusations of the puppies rigging anything are patent nonsense. Meanwhile on the other hand the SJWs even had alternate awards premade for their predetermined "winners".
You mean things like the fact the burn-it-all outcome was predicted in advance and the SJWs' preselected winners were even given alternate awards?
If yo've been following any of this, it's quite clear Vox Day and his ilk espouse much the same in the way of toxic views as the MRA/RedPill/MGTOW/etc crowd. MRA is as convenient a label as any since they all behave in more or less identical ways.
Only if you're a complete liar who needs to delegitimize one of those because they threaten the monopoly your toxic hate movement has on all discourse, funding, and even morality itself. MRAs are diametrically opposed to Redpillers on virtually everything except that they both have a problem with feminists. Redpillers, like feminists, judge men solely based on their success with women. To a feminist a man's worth is judged by how loyal of a kapo he is, to a redpiller it's how much sex he has. Both use being unsuccessful with (or unattractive to) women as their ultimate insult. Feminists use the slur "neckbeard", which draws on racialized caricatures and repurposes them. Redpillers use the insult "beta".
But a big part of it is the rabid puppies are in fact a bunch of raving mysoginists who hate anyone who is't a straight, whte, Chriatian male. Their fearless leader (Vox Day) holds those views loudly and proudly. He's never tried to deny it and frequently makes such comments. See here for his own views in his own words on homosexuality for example:
I'm not Vox Day. Vox Day also agreeing the Hugos are rigged by a toxic clique of social justice pretenders is about as relevant to the point as Hitler passing animal cruelty legislation is to my volunteering with a shelter.
And if you really think this is still the case, then explain why the blogger who outed RH and documented her awfulness got a Hugo for her efforts.
The real question is why it took that much to finally get SJWs to stop supporting this person in the frist place.
MRAs were never what you claimed them to be in the first place. Then again you claim them to be literally everything under the sun to the point you've outdone the "thanks obama" meme in breadth and variety of things blamed on MRAs.
As for ad-hominem attacks that's pretty rich coming from someone whose posting history consists almost solely of attacking people as misogynists, MRAs, misogynist MRAs, or some other synonym.
I suggest you look up the definition of ad-hominem by the way. Pointing out that you're defending people who are actively hostile to the women and minorities you claim to care about isn't ad hominem, it's pointing out that your claims of a moral high ground are bullshit.
It's almost as if that's not the issue at all, and female/LGBT/non-white authors are in fact regularly celebrated and embraced... when they're not being terrorized by SJW trolls. It's almost as if all that talk of "equality" and "diversity" from SJWs is provably just a smokescreen for toxic bigotry and a violent hatred of dissent.
Meanwhile in the real world it's women like Toni Weisskopf getting No Awarded because she was "contaminated" by thought criminals liking her work. You do realise it's facially absurd for you to say things like this when SJW's worst victims usually ARE women and minorities, right?
SJWs are toxic, demand everyone join their crusade or be put to the sword, and in the real world often resort to threats of violence and even actual crimes to silence dissent. If anyone is like the Taliban it's the sex-negative woman-hating racists who resort to bomb and death threats against people that disagree with them... you know, SJWs.
And the reason for an unprecedented number of "No Awards" to be given out was....? Say it with me: Because of a clique dominating the Hugos voting out anyone they dislike.
Funny normally I hear that line from people claiming the Jews are actually Khazars and have something to do with the freemasons and fluoridated water.
Yes, it's a lie, and your attempt to claim otherwise neither matches reality or matches the summary's headline, and barely addresses the major lies in the summary.
The headline claims that fans votes were ignored. That's a lie. The fans rejected the Puppy's works. The entities running the Hugos did not override the vote, ignore them, or in any other way replace a legitimate vote with a "No award".
It's not a lie in the slightest. The clique dominating the Hugos refused to allow any awards to be given to anyone tainted by crimethink.
The summary claims that the controversy over the selection had to do with "a group of (fans)" wanting to promote "hard science fiction". That's a lie. It had to do with two groups, one of which wanted to promote right wing works, the other of which wanted to prevent works it perceived as left wing from being voted upon, both of which using slates of "ideologically sound" works to squeeze out other works from the final ballots.
You forgot "reactionary", "MRA", and "antifeminist" with your partisan straw man.
Even when the summary tells the truth, its worded in such a way to imply conspiracy where there is none: The summary the bizarre statement "The question was left: would the final voters of the Hugo awards accept these nominees, or just take their ball home and refuse to give out anyway awards at all?" as if to imply that there was something wrong with voters on the Hugos, which is open to everyone who pays the small membership fee involved, being offended by a blatant attempt to rig the Hugos.
It's not bizarre at all. The entire point was whether the toxic clique rigging the Hugos would award nominees from outside their clique or if they would take the unprecedented step of handing out more No Awards in a single event than in almost the history of the award.
The blatant rigging was from the people who've been pushing ideology to the point they'll No Award a female author just because people they dislike happened to like her.
I don't recall, in the history of Slashdot, seeing such a blatant attempt by political ideologues to lie about an event they were a part of.
You must not browse slashdot very much then because the editors have made a habit of doing that every week. We call it "feminist friday".
And to the Puppies here claiming that somehow they "won": no, you didn't. You didn't "prove anything" beyond the fact that those who care about the Hugos hate it - absolutely hate it - when you try to rig their awards. If the so-called "SJWs" tried to pull the same stunt, the same thing would have happened. You know it.
The puppies didn't rig anything, they proved that the hugos WERE rigged in the first place.
What a lovely straw man you've created. The SJW vote was clearly along a slate and clearly ideologically based. It was predicted well in advance and hostile to anyone, especially women and minorities, that dared commit crimethink.
Make sure to tell that to all the racists who still refuse to consider them "white".
It's not a lie in the slightest. SJWs stacked their vote to "No Award" anyone, especially women (like Toni Weisskopf) and minorities, tainted by crimethink and in the process handed out more No Awards in one year than in almost the entire history of the Hugos. These are the same people who had no issue supporting vicious trolls like RequiresHate for a long time.
Toni Weisskopf was No Awarded for being contaminated by crimethink. Meanwhile SJWs had no problem for years with supporting RequiresHate, a vicious troll who overwhelmingly targeted women and non-whites for her self-aggrandizing hate campaigns.
Sorry were you offended it wasn't a Feminist Friday article sourced from Jezebel about how another $70,000 needs to be spent to tell men they're sitting wrong on the subway?
If it's flamebait you want you're looking at the wrong side of this.
More No Awards were handed out in a single hugo, as predicted months in advance, than in almost the entire history of the award. And every category that was No Awarded was a direct shot at an author tainted by "crimethink" even if they were a woman.
Except that's exactly what did happen, and was predicted months in advance. SJWs dogpiled "no award" rather than allow anyone, especially women and minorities, tainted by "crimethink" to win a hugo.
What's particularly interesting is how often those ideologues are some combination of rich, white, and often even male and how often their victims are none of the three.
First off the word "reactionary" doesn't mean anything the way you're using it, it's purely a scare-word. Everything is a "reaction" to something.
Second if you want to talk about diversity you're supporting the wrong people. You don't get to side with (mostly rich, white, often male) people who call women "nouse ni**ers", mail people knives, syringes, and dead animals, make credible bomb threats that force multiple evacuations, and overwhelmingly target women and minorities for outright criminal abuse and claim to be supporting "diveristy".
And when it comes to scifi you're on even worse ground considering the actions of people like RequiresHate.
It makes perfect sense. The puppies spread their votes among authors they liked while SJWs, enraged at women like Toni Weisskopf being nominated after they were tainted by crimethink, concentrated their votes on "No Award". Had someone like Benjanun "Requires Hate" been on the ballot they would have voted for her by a landslide instead.
Except it's completely the opposite. The puppies scattered their votes between who they thought most deserved an award. The SJWs concentrated their votes on "No Award" to landslide out anyone, especially women or non-whites, who was tainted by crimethink.
If there was no voting bloc then women like Toni Weisskopf would have won a hugo award rather than get No Awarded purely because they were tainted by crimethink.
Yeah because Toni Weisskopf is totally a white male, much better to side with people like Benjanun who go out of their way to attack and abuse women and minorities for their own self-aggrandizement.
Do you honestly think anyone other than poperatzo and a few other SJWs here on /. still buy your "it's about equality!" whitewashing when you prove, time and again, that you will side with the most vile and toxic of abusers purely because they're SJWs who claim the banner of Feminism?
MRAs literally had absolutely nothing to do with this, it was a reaction to the hugos becoming a cliquish groupthink approved voting slate that rewarded toxic bigots like Requires Hate while ostracizing people like Toni Weisskopf for their crimethink... or even purely because crimethinkers liked them.
Congratulations AniMojo, once again you've proven unequivocably that you don't give a flying fuck about women or equality and only use that line as a cover for siding with toxic bigots who disproportionately target women and minorities.
Jews aren't "white", there was this little kerfuffle about it about 70 years ago. We might not always have dark skin but we're not "white" and have never been "white". Anyone insisting Jews are "white" needs to get a goddamn time machine and go tell it to the people who've been enslaving, slaughtering, and persecuting us for the last 4000 or so years.
they're just considered "white" now. Like how hispanics and jews are "white" whenever it's convenient.