The Mighty Buzzard writes:
So, last night the SJW types over at the Hugo awards decided they'd rather burn the whole thing to the ground than give out an award based on what the readers like instead of social justice reasons:
The members of the World Science Fiction Society rejected the slate of finalists in five categories, giving No Award in Best Novella, Short Story, Related Work, Editor Short Form, and Editor Long Form. This equals the total number of times that WSFS members have presented No Award in the entire history of the Hugo Awards, most recently in 1977.
Here are a few of the people on the #SadPuppies slate that should be quite surprised to learn that they were denied a chance at an award for being white males when they wake up this morning: Rajnar Vajra, Larry Correia, Annie Bellet, Kary English, Toni Weisskopf, Ann Sowards, Megan Gray, Sheila Gilbert, Jennifer Brozek, Cedar Sanderson, and Amanda Green.
takyon: Here are in-depth explanations of the Hugo Awards controversy.
Previously: "Rightwing lobby has 'broken' Hugo awards" Says George R.R. Martin (240 comments)
> You have the Sad Puppies confused with the Rabid Puppies.
The rabid puppies got all of their nomination choices accepted, the sad puppies were not so successful. When there was a choice between sad noms and rabid noms, the rabids won and the sads lost.
I can see how if you consider yourself just a sad puppy you want to distinguish yourself from the rabids, but there is tons of overlap between the two groups and the rabids got more votes over all, they are clearly leading the movement.
Sad suggested blocks of authors and said pick your favorites to vote for. Rabid laid out fixed blocks and said vote exactly like this. And when it came time to vote? Sad and Rabid both voted for the books they thought best while the SJWs took their flamethrowers to the categories.
Another non-sequitur response. Nothing you wrote contradicts the point that rabids were more succesful at getting their noms than sads were and thus are leading the movement.