A ‘no award’ clean sweep doesn’t make the awards meaningless because it’s still a repudiation of the puppies racist, sexist, homophobic fascist etc agenda, and any claim from the puppies that they’ve exposed the meaninglessness of the awards is countered by the simple question of do you realise your stance that the awards only have meaning when your nominees win is as mature as metaphorically taking your ball home when you start loosing.
Admittedly trying to explain this reasoned position is a hiding to nothing what with it involving logic, an attribute the puppies seem to be completely unburdened by.
Let them piss their puppy pads all they want. They can start their own awards.
Every single regressive piece of shit view will be justified by whatever happens. If they win, if they lose, if their ideological campaigns are sidestepped, every piece of data justifies their shithead conspiracy.
Except the purpose of the Hugo awards isn’t to repudiate the puppies viewpoints and agenda. It’s to award and recognize the best science fiction or fantasy. If the whole thing ends up being no award year after year after year, then whatever the award is meant to do is pointless.
I’m not sure how that follows from my post.
Evolution has no goals and no concept of progress. And in fact politics has no concept of progress; society is becoming more technically capable but that doesn’t mean, really, that Donald Trump is an advance on Caligula.
Technology has facilitated the growing power of women in the West - as H G Wells predicted physical strength is becoming much less significant in developed societies - but it makes it easier to oppress them in Wahabist and Salafist societies. On its own it is neutral.
What is different about the West is that a significant number of people have invented a teleology - the idea that the goal of society is to promote greater equality and oppose discrimination. This is opposed by very powerful forces, and the war isn’t over.
I would think that the pile of No Awards this year would improve your faith in the value of the award. This year’s drama does not appear to result in us handing out too many Hugos.
FWIW, the improved voting system linked above sounds quite promising.
As the original article said, there is a rule change underway to make the Hugo nominations less susceptible to blocs. Sadly, due to the way the Hugo rules changes work, it can’t take effect until the 2017 Hugos.
Wait just a minute, I need a moment to wrap my mind around this. So first they deliberately publicly conspire to organise a voting block to drive particular ideological agenda and when this backfires they start crying out about other people allegedly voting in a block?!? Priceless… I guess that that irony is wasted on them. It must suck to be on the losing end of evolution.
Thanks for the link I was lost too, and with these kind of things google isn’t so helpful as the bias runs deep and you end up reading all sorts of… crap… to get an answer.
They had already previously said that the type of block voting they were using was already being used by others, and honestly it probably was but not to the extent they were and not for dickish reasons.
The assholes don’t need ammo to claim conspiracy - they’ve been claiming it at every stage already. (e.g. They nominated their slate to fight “the conspiracy,” their slate didn’t win any awards because of “the conspiracy” etc.) The puppies are saying they haven’t failed and this was exactly the outcome they were going for - true or not, they’re trolls and they’ve indicated they’re going to continue to troll. So the problem this year - that worthy works got pushed off the nomination list by their slate, resulting in no awards in many categories - will continue. The puppies are going to try to destroy the Hugos by preventing anyone from ever winning one.
I wonder if the number crunching will be able to tease out the number of people voting the nuclear option (no award on everything) and the anti-puppy slate (no votes for slate nominees and Lara Mixion).
Sure, the voting pool is tiny. But it’s still good to have at least one famous, prestigious, fan voted award. It’s good to have awards voted on by experts and critics but they don’t necessarily agree with normal fans. I’m sure WSFS could do more to get people to vote but at the same time it shouldn’t be so easy that a share on Tumblr will bring in 10 000 people to vote for the Winchester Bros. Maybe if they advertise more, continue issuing downloadable voter’s packs and make the price of admission a bit cheaper?
I don’t know if evidence exists, we’d have to see ballots to see if it’s actually occurring. But publishers and agents pushing people/employees/attendees to vote for a slate is not something new. Whether or not people are actually doing it, though, needs those actual individual ballots.
Priceless… I guess that that irony is wasted on them. It must suck to be on the losing end of evolution.
