In their thoughts, in the their deeds, and in the widely-disseminated words?
On the internet, everyone knows you’re an asshole.
Are you really trying to paint the puppies as a group who promoted a racially/gender-diverse slate?
Go on, re-read the parts of this article on Rapid Puppy Ted Beale, and look us in the eye and say with a straight face “they’re not racist/sexist/homophobic misogynist assholes”.
Dollars-to-donuts, if you do, rain from nowhere will fall on you.
There’s an article over at io9 about how the very fact that they were able to conspire to stuff the nominations proves that there wasn’t (before them) a conspiracy to stuff the ballot.
As long as nothing near Helsinki catches fire, I guess.
In fact, Three-Body Problem only made it onto the slate because a puppy-nominated author withdrew from consideration.
Well, I hear most of the Puppy nominations were so bad that there’s no way anymore to tell whether the fans truly voted for what they liked best (after having suffered through reading every single entry nominated by the puppies), or whether they engaged in bloc voting of their own.
I did not register to vote, but if I had, I would probably have neglected to even read most of the Puppies’ nominations. I would have effectively voted in an anti-puppies bloc.
What if the nominations included something politically ugly, but genuinely good?
There is no such thing?
Well, in the past, there was Heinlein. I admire his genius, and I don’t regret reading him. Yet I detest his politics. Filtered through my European center-left world view, the man was just evil. My worst political enemies would have stuffed the ballot with his works, and all the decent people I know would have resoundingly denounced that.
But that’s why it’s not enough for the good guys to win. As soon as they have to think about good and bad, winning and losing, the award loses. I want the Hugo firmly in the hands of voters who don’t think about politics.
But I’m still hoping for 2018 (2017: New rules for nominations. 2018: Maybe people will forget about politics again).
But what if there’s no “silent majority”? You’re just wasting everyone’s time.
Right, because a group that has as its goal in sci-fi to “destroy SJWs” is all about diversity" 
These guys are pathetic.
Good news is, they’ve already started moving on policy to try and fix the problem, preventing (in theory) nomination rigging and voting blocs.
We’ll have to see how it works in practice before we declare that a proper victory, but it should work.
It won’t save the 2016 Hugos. Assuming that the new rules are seconded in 2016, 2017 may be different.
The only truly safe strategy is to read self-published SF for the next year!
Hello Puppies troll who just joined the site. Hopefully you learn something from this thread and stay to participate in good faith (not that I believe you will).
The rest of Kinja is still fundamentally awful, mute features notwithstanding.
Oh boy, yes. They do have some quality tweets, don’t they. Apparently the Hugo awards showrunners are book-burners.
Interesting to see how the atheists of the Dawkins/Hitchens sort have all joined up on the various MRA armies.
Edit: Anyway, sidestepping the latecoming sad puppy 
EHP passed, and if it gets ratified next year, the problem is fixed.
Good to hear 
EPH is a great fix to this problem.
There’s always a silent majority. IMO, my discussions got better since I realized that the point isn’t to change the opinion of the guy you’re arguing with, because that’s nearly impossible. It’s to show the bystanders why your stance is better.
Why though?
Why else? I want to convert others to my opinion. One good way to do that is express my opinion in such a way that neutral bystanders think “hm, this guy sounds like he’s on the level” instead of “man, this guy is a dick”.
I’m not sure that this mythological “neutral bystander” exists on the Internet. More like “uncaring momentary visitor.”
I got your neutral bystander right here.
@PhasmaFelis is right. I’ve been in similar situations offline, when you can see the people standing around, and talk to some of them later. Online, there may be much larger crowds of “lurkers” – I used to read claims that there are about 1000 lurkers for every active participant in a forum. (I’d be curious if @beschizza, et. al., know what the ratio is for BB.) Even if most of them are more casual than their offline counterparts, there are still a fair number of people who are going to follow things more closely.
Once in a great while, I’ll get a direct message from someone who’s read a thread, and didn’t want to appear in it directly, but appreciated my comments. (Even less often, I’ll get a hostile response.) So I know that some people pay attention to these things.
